Thursday, January 26, 2006

It's quiet at the movies lately. January is an infamous dumping ground for new releases (camouflaged somewhat by the slowly expanding Oscar contenders) and in most cases it's just as advisable to wait for the DVD as it is to go out to a theater.

In the case of Bubble you actually have that option sooner than usual. Not that this is a run-of-the-mill Hollywood release. Far from it. It's the latest movie from Oscar winner (and my personal favorite director) Steven Soderbergh and it opens in limited arthouse release on Friday. The same day it will make its television debut on HDNet. And beginning Tuesday you can rent or buy it on DVD. It's an unusual strategy but it's the future of distribution, at least according to 2929 Productions' Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner. But that story has been well covered.

What I'm interested in is the movie. It's a weird little experiment of a project, the kind that no other major filmmaker would even attempt (possibly because no other major filmmaker works as much as Soderbergh or because most major filmmakers can't make a movie without feeling they have to put everything they have into it). It's closest in spirit to other Soderbergh oddities like Full Frontal and HBO's K Street but without professional actors, which actually makes it more compelling.

Still the sparse improv-style dialogue and lack of significant events (the bare bones plot involves a love triangle, of sorts, among factory workers on the border of Ohio and West Virginia) will drive a lot of viewers crazy. This is niche filmmaking at its most niche. (Which makes it an odd choice to test drive that new distribution strategy, but also removes a lot of the pressure to perform in a big way. Anyone who sees this movie can't possibly expect it to become a breakout hit in any form of release.)

Bubble often feels like a more-polished-than-usual student film but its unique cast and location make it worth seeing, especially for fans of Soderbergh or offbeat cinema.

Also offbeat, but less successful, is the new Lars Trier scourge Manderlay. It's the second film in a planned trilogy that began with Dogville (which I have not yet seen). I can't say how Manderlay compares to its predecessor but I can say that much like the other two Trier films I've seen it at least inspired a strong response. I loved Breaking the Waves. I thought Dancer in the Dark was stupid and insulting. Unfortunately I found Manderlay to be, well, boring.

Trier frequently courts controversy but both his fans and detractors will have to try extra hard to get worked up over this one. The plot involves a 1930s Southern plantation where slavery is still in practice, despite having been abolished decades earlier. Bryce Dallas Howard (who proves her fantastic debut in The Village was no fluke) stars as a woman determined to right this wrong, but her efforts are not as welcome as one would think (the character was played by Nicole Kidman in Dogville; her father was played by James Caan in that film and an unimpressive Willem DaFoe here; Lauren Bacall, Jeremy Davies and Chloe Sevigny are among the actors who appear in both films but they have nothing significant to do in this one).

It's possible to view the movie as an allegory to George W. Bush's Iraq war as Howard's character forces democracy on the not-quite-ready and not-quite-willing residents of Manderlay. But that reading is simple-minded and undernourished by what's on screen. I doubt it's all that Trier intended. It's hard to say what he intended though as the movie mostly meanders, lacking any interesting characters or provocative ideas until it comes to an outlandish conclusion capped by an absurd closing credits sequence (the only time Trier's wicked provocateur streak truly shines through).

The film retains Dogville's much discussed bare bones theatrical style (and novelistic John Hurt narration) and the effect is striking but can't compensate for the lack of interesting happenings on screen. Save for some tawdry sexual escapades late in the film there's very little to quicken the pulse. And even less to engage the mind.

No comments: