Cheap Bubble (DVD) (Steven Soderbergh) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of Bubble

Absorbingly real "realism"
When I checked out this movie, I had an idea that it was going to be a documentary about working people in Appalachia. And the first scenes supported that view. The movie starts to unfold along the same lines as PBS's recent documentary called "Country Boys." It gives the viewer the feel of eavesdroping on real people as they negotiate their lives through the factory, pre-fab, fast food settings of Parkersburg, WV. <
> <
>It took a while for me to become interested in the laconic lives of these people. Kyle especially seemed a typical boy of the region, trapped in inarticulateness, outside the US mainstream of glib babble. But before I knew it, I was absolutely absorbed by the slow-moving dance of these people. However I realized that this was not a documentary. It is "partly fact and partly fiction." As the Bonus Materials on the DVD reveal, some of the actors' real-life back-stories are incorporated into the characters they portray. But it becomes evident that the action is scripted, at least in outline - when there's a murder. <
> <
>Still, the motives for this murder remain close to home, subtle, and anything but Hollywood. Most Hollywood murder movies involve a "McGuffin," that contrivance that Alfred Hitchcock defined as the necessary motivating force of a film. It's the Maltese falcon, the diamond necklace, the million dollars stolen from a bank vault - that winds up the characters and pits them in action against each other. <
> <
>There is no McGuffin in this movie. The murder that takes place develops organically, from the low-key dynamic between the three main people in the film. After watching Bubble, I don't think I'll ever again be able to look on the typical Hollywood McGuffin-riddled movies as anything but utterly phony. What's more, having seen this style of true realism, I'll forever after take a more jaundiced view of the usual movies that fly under the label of "realism." When the usual Hollywood movie is given that brand, it generally means it is filled with grit and gore and extravagant violence. And that's actually about as far from the way most of us experience daily life as it is possible to get. By contrast, Bubble's realism is true to what most of us experience every day. It's made up of the snubs and small disappointments we are buffeted by every time we interact with others. <
> <
>The main actors are ideal choices for the roles they play, their actual lives informing the characters they play. The one slightly false note in this ensemble is Jake, the character who comes storming on the scene as Rose's ex-boyfriend. However, even with him we are put back in touch with what is - when we are taken into that actor's actual house, with the graffiti-blasted interior walls of his living room. I have known young men who "decorated" their rooms that way. <
> <
>Then there are the fascinating views of the actual doll factory where much of the film is shot. I can't agree with some people who found these views telling commentaries on the dead-end, deadly jobs that so many people in Appalachia are forced to endure. To the contrary, I actually found myself almost wanting to sign on for a job in that factory. The process of pouring the plastic into the doll molds, extracting the resultant little heads and little limbs, then assembling and giving life-like finishing features to these dolls - was eerie, absorbing, and convivial all at the same time. It seemed like work that requires on-going manual dexterity, but that still leaves you free enough to socialize or think your own thoughts in the doing. Such work seems far more liberating, than say work as a stockbroker. <
> <
>In summary, if you don't need lots of special effects in your movies - if you would enjoy being a fly on the wall, observing the small-scale drama of people leading their lives - then this is the movie for you. I highly recommend it.

---

Disappointing (Spoiler)
I imagined the film to be intriguing. This movie had absolutely nothing to it, except for the real life feel. Personally I liked the unknown actors in this film, but couldn't there have been some kind of interesting plot twist? Something? All we got was what we expected. Martha kills Rose. You expect that from the beginning. I was waiting for something interesting to happen. But it never did.

---

It's Bad, but Worse Than That: Soderbergh Didn't Try to Make a Good Film.
"Bubble" is director Steven Soderbergh's flight of fancy from all things Hollywood, the first of a 6-part series of films that are to be site-specific and cast with nonprofessional actors from the areas represented in the films. Written by Coleman Hough, "Bubble" takes place within a depressed working class community in a small Ohio town. Martha (Debbie Doebereiner), a middle-aged woman who cares for her elderly father, works in a doll factory with good friend Kyle (Dustin Ashley), an uneducated young man who works 2 jobs to save a little money. When the factory hires Rose (Misty Wilkins), an attractive and manipulative single mother, an awkward triangle emerges: Rose doesn't hesitate to impress upon Martha's generosity or to flirt with Kyle, of whom Martha is protective and a little possessive. <
> <
>Using amateur actors and naturalistic settings is nothing new. Italian neo-realists and their many imitators were fond of the idea. Third-world directors commonly rely on local casts. Even Hollywood went through a phase in the 1940s when non-professional actors got supporting roles in docudramas. Amateur casts often produce excellent results. But not here. Most of the acting in "Bubble" is bad. It's hard to say if the actors lack talent. Steven Soderbergh placed them in a situation in which even professional actors would not succeed. They didn't have a real script. A lot of their conversations are ad-libbed. It's flat. Script-less dialogue has been done ad nauseum in cinema, always with bad results. Misty Watkins does manage to express Rose's brattiness and insincerity in spite of aimless, sparse dialogue. Kyle Smith is also convincing in the small role of Rose's ex-boyfriend Jake. Generally, the acting improves as the film progresses, but that only draws attention to how bad it was to begin with. <
> <
>To make matters worse, the actors didn't have the benefit of competent framing and lighting. "Bubble" is shot on grainy DV. Shadows are blocked up, highlights blown out. Soderbergh was either unable or unwilling to adjust the white balance, so odd color casts abound. The framing is either haphazard or deliberately chosen to draw attention to itself, as opposed to directing our attention to the action on the screen. The director apparently chose not to move anything on the sets, which are real locations, so the lighting is terrible. Actors' faces are immersed in shadow when we need to see them. Steven Soderbergh calls this "challenging and provocative". It's incompetent. I guess he thinks a film with no script, no production design, and bad cinematography somehow resembles real life. Nothing could be further from the truth. It takes a whole lot of artifice to create something that looks real in a movie. The human eye and brain do not perceive the way film or DV do. We see a much wider tonal range, much more detail in shadows and highlights. Our brain adjusts for color casts in different light sources. Our eyes focus on what we care about. Our memories are selective. Et cetera. "Bubble" looks like crap. <
> <
>I recall discussing -in a film class many years ago- how a filmmaker might make the audience aware of the contrivance and manipulation of a film as they are watching it. There is no practical reason to do this, but it is an intellectual exercise. After watching a variety of films from conventional continuous narratives to the most outrageously self-conscious things I hope to ever see, the class inevitably concluded that the audience accepts what it sees as part and parcel of the film's style. The only way to draw the audience's attention to how they are being jerked around would be to make an obvious mistake. Fake mistakes never work. In the thousands of films I've seen since then, I've never seen a film that succeeded in doing that until "Bubble". Soderbergh has the arrogance to reject the fact that filmmaking is a craft, with predictable results. If you rejected craftsmanship in making a vase, you would end up with an ugly, useless lump of pottery that leaks. It's inept. So is "Bubble". But it sure did draw my attention to what its director is trying to cram down my throat. If that were what Steven Soderbergh intended, I would congratulate him. <
> <
>A lot is being made of "Bubble" being the first film to be released in multiple formats simultaneously. It was released theatrically, on cable, and on DVD at the same time. If films that have limited distribution could be released simultaneously on DVD without eliminating too much theatrical revenue, it would save movie studios a lot of money. I commend Magnolia Films for trying it, but "Bubble" is not a good test subject. It's not technically proficient enough, or long enough, to be a theatrical film. It can't make money at the box office, DVD or no DVD. Personally, I think Steven Soderbergh sold Magnolia a bill of goods, but, whatever the case, Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner are going to have to find a better test case. <
> <
>The DVD (Magnolia 2006): Bonus features include 3 featurettes, a deleted scene with alternate ending (6 min), "Bubble Still Gallery" of behind-the-scenes photos, a theatrical trailer (1 ½ min), and 2 audio commentaries. In "Bursting the Bubble: The Real Lives of the Actors" (11 min), screenwriter Coleman Hough introduces us to the 3 priniciple actors in Parkersburg, West Virginia. This is one of the most condescending things I've ever seen. "Finding the Cast" is lengthy interviews with Dustin Ashley (10 min), Debbie Doebereiner (7 min), and Misty Wilkins (6 min), in which the actors talk about their real lives. "HDNet's Higher Definition: Highlights from the Interview with Steven Soderbergh" (9 ½ min) is an interview with Soderbergh by Robert Wilonsky about his 6-picture deal and the ideas behind "Bubble". There is an audio commentary by Steven Soderbergh and Mark Romanek (who is also a director), in which Soderbergh talks about working with non-professional actors, stylistic choices, and his perspective on this project. Another audio commentary features Dustin Ashley, Debbie Doebereiner, Misty Wilkins, and Coleman Hough. The actors talk about learning how the film unfolds as they went along, the direction that Soderbergh gave them, and their experiences making the movie. Subtitles for the film are available in Spanish.