Bubble

Minimalist film-making at its finest. A glimpse into the lives of ordinary people, Appalachian blue-collar factory workers, going about their lives – waking up, going to work, doing their jobs, chatting in the break room, having a sandwich, having a cigarette, getting back to work, going home at the end of the day and watching television. The set-up to the defining moment of the film is as realistic a portrayal of regular old boring life as I have ever seen on film, and the set-up is most of the movie. Going into this, I hadn't heard or read anything about the film, and so had no idea what to expect. "But this is from the director of Traffic," I thought. "It'll have to be pretty exciting." Well, exciting is hardly the word. Well-crafted is more like it. I spent the first half hour waiting for something to happen before it finally sunk in that the whole point was to show us what most people's lives, at least outside of the city, are really like. The dialogue could not be more perfect, and the casting director did a remarkable job finding talented but unknown actors. And this is important because, had the acting been awkward, it would have completely undermined the feeling that we are viewing a true story. It doesn't have the feel of a documentary exactly, more like surveillance camera footage shot with high quality movie cameras. It is very convincing. I also found it oddly relaxing. The key event that takes place in the second half of the film is not shown. We see its set-up and aftermath and are left to imagine the details for ourselves. There is an element of mystery, but the revelation, as with everything else in this movie, is subtle.

I had been meaning to see Bubble for a really long time. The DVD always popped up on my "recommended films" list on NetFlix and the cover looked really compelling. When I finally saw it I have to admit I was totally surprised. Steven Soderbergh has such a range, from high budget, high profile films that feature every star in Hollywood to something like Bubble, which was shot in a small town in Ohio using non-actors from the area and a mostly improvised script. All of his films are interesting and all of them, in my opinion, are good.

Bubble is a slice of life film which goes very dark very quickly with very little explanation. The non-actors that make up this perfectly awkward ensemble cast do a spectacular job integrating their own personalities and experiences with the plot of the film. The performances in this film are wonderful and could not have been achieved with big name actors.

Bubble was also shot on DV which doesn't show at all. I have always said, if a filmmaker has truly mastered DV then the audience will never know it's not film. Granted some shots in Bubble couldn't pass for 35 mm but it's pretty damn close.

Bubble is complex in it's simplicity. This is the fist of Soderbergh's 6 low budget picture deal with HD Net. The other 5 will follow the same formula: choose a subject, choose a town, choose local actors. If you feel like seeing something way outside the mainstream but oddly close to home Bubble is a good choice. Just don't watch it expecting any of the characteristics of modern Hollywood.

Bubble was a pleasant experience with a solid script, great performances and sharp direction. With echoes from Aki Kaurismäki's work, Soderbergh gives us a intimate movie which borderlines between a tragicomedy and a mystery tale.

I expected the low budget to show, but this movie was absolutely beautifully shot and I still don't believe that the equipment fit in one van... The actors were very good, and it's hard to believe they weren't professionals.

All in all, a very good film which I plan to view several times. I am left eagerly awaiting the next movie in Steven Soderbergh's series of low-budget movies shot in America.

Bubble (2005)

I think any movie by Steven Soderbergh was at least worth looking at if only because he takes what you might call safe chances. But they are chances. Some are brilliant or at least very successful, such as "Erin Brockovich" or "Traffic," and others are well done and worthy side trips like "Che" or even the recent "Contagion." But then there are clunkers like the well-intentioned "The Good German" shot using vintage equipment and trying hard to be the real deal 50 years late.

So "Bubble" looks like something straight from the Indie world--a small unknown cast, a simple kind of location shooting, modest production values, and full of decent sincere acting. And a decent idea, at least enough to draw you in: a group of people work in a struggling doll factory in an Ohio town and a new employee gets murdered. In a very believable almost documentary way the local detective looks for answers. And the murderer is found.

Well folks, that's it. There's a very long build up to the crime, setting up in fifty minutes what a good noir would do in five. We get to know the small cast of very ordinary folk. They are mostly likable, but all a bit quirky. (They live in West Virginia, actually, across the river from the factor.) There is no real suspense or curiosity required during this time, just patience.

Then there is the murder (not shown, just told). And the detective makes his rounds interviewing each of these people we now know as viewers. And we know kind of who might have done it or why. And then the crime is solved (and the perp is no surprise, and is intentionally not meant to be). And then the movie ends.

I don't know if there's some kind of surreal intention here, or if it really is about how mundane life is in Middle America even when a killing is involved. But it's not enough. The movie is short (75 minutes) so it's not the end of the world (as "Tree of Life" was for a lot of people, or "Barry Lyndon" depending on your taste). So try it out. The doll factory scenes are briefly interesting. The side characters are subdued and fine. The cop is wonderful and a bit drab.

You might decide this is a film about relationships since that ends up being the core of the movie, or about personality types (since these get dissected by the cop interviews) but if so, there are a million ways to make this more moving or interesting or odd or anything.

Focused mediocrity?

My husband and I saw Bubble at the Little Theatre in Rochester, NY on January 27. We went in expecting to enjoy it since we enjoy all kinds of films, and the subject matter resonates with us as working class people in our 40s. Most of the audience appeared to be upper middle-class people in their 50s and 60s. I sensed by the end of the showing that they did not like it. They probably also would not have liked Gummo, the film this one most reminded us of. People coming out of the earlier showing made comments like, "Well, what was THAT all about?" I hope that responses like that don't keep Soderburgh from making all the rest of the films in his planned series. More people need to think about the issues raised in Bubble.

Notable issues: Repressed emotions, due to constant care-taking of others, spending most of your time and energy just getting by, working in monotonous jobs, working all the time, not working at all, just surviving, just getting by. What is the definition of "friend"? What is art?

Notable images: The artistry involved in actually manufacturing the dolls, resemblance of Martha's face to the dolls' faces, actually seeing the emotions on the actors' faces when Rose is introduced to the other workers, Jake's apartment walls, still shots of the doll parts (especially the ones with the patent leather shoes on the feet), Kyle shoveling sawdust at the shovel factory.

The ending: It is simple and jarring. But it was enough.

The performances: Dignified and confident. I can't imagine myself doing as well as they did. They should feel proud of their accomplishment.