NYFF Review: Bubble

Here's a prediction: there will be a handful of critics who, in their attack of Steven Soderbergh's latest offering (the low budget but high-definition Bubble), will argue that it is a condescending look at life in small town red-state USA. And like those who found Dogville to be little more than an anti-American polemic, this will be yet another knee-jerk reaction from those who aren't interested in exploring what Soderbergh was after. Bubble is quite different from Soderbergh's other "experimental" (read: non-studio) works. Set in a tiny town near the border of Ohio and West Virginia, its simple story tells of three characters who work at a doll factory. Kyle, a reserved twenty-something who still lives with his mom, works at the factory with his good friend Martha, a lonely woman about ten years his senior whose life consists of work, and taking care of her elderly father. Enter Rose, a young, attractive, single mom who joins the factory during a busy period, and who will forever upset the stasis of Kyle and Martha's lives. Much has been said about Soderbergh's approach to the project -- the wonderfully economical screenplay by Coleman Hough was written around the town (and doll factory), and the entire cast is made up of local residents, none of whom have acting experience. Debbie Doebereiner, a general manager at KFC, is magnificent as Martha, and the strength of her performance is best felt during the non-verbal moments -- there's a genuine sense of tension and unease she expresses with her piercing eyes and stilted movements. Is it acting, or simply an awkward reaction to the unfamiliarity of the camera's presence? Much of the same can be said for the rest of the cast, which leads one to wonder -- will the six films Soderbergh plans to make in this manner trigger a trend towards non-actors? It certainly would be a refreshing change from the phoned-in performances found in too many Hollywood films. With Bubble, Soderbergh has crafted a murder mystery without the mystery, and the film has a decidedly Bressonian quality to it. With its de-dramatizing of the melodrama, and the use of non-actors (a trait of Bresson's as well), the resulting emotional response is similar to what we often associate with the Gallic master. One could also argue that its exploration of morality, particularly the chilling non-reaction from the characters at the news of the murder is reminiscent of L'Argent. (A fellow critic suggested Kaurismaki as a comparison, which also isn't off the mark.) Yet Bubble is nowhere as cynical as the late Bresson, and Soderbergh's Ohio in no way resembles the moral wasteland of L'Argent. Instead, he presents us with a world where almost everything is either temporary, artificial or disposable. People live and work in mobile homes, food comes either out of a machine or a paper bag from one of many fast food establishments. Even the doll factory itself comes off more like some freakish humanoid birthing center than it does a workshop for the most innocent of toys. None of his characters are particularly happy, and though some speak of a desire to escape, even the dreams seem fleeting. It's probably not entirely coincidental that the film is set in the state that was a major point of contention in the last presidential election. But before people accuse the film of being a liberal Hollywood attack on the good working folk of Bush's America, keep in mind that Soderbergh himself was raised in Louisiana -- a state that, as we have especially seen in recent weeks, is not unfamiliar with the plight of the working class. The economic divide in this country is all too real, and Martha's reaction while walking around the wealthy home that Rose cleans shouldn't be seen as being patronizing and/or critical. Sure, there is a greater distance here between Soderbergh and his characters (when compared to his other small projects), but this seems more in line with the overall simplicity of the project. Even his cinematography (credited to his alter ego Peter Andrews) is far more conservative than usual -- the film is full of establishing shots, and the camera is fairly steady throughout. At the same time, the film does draw attention to the Christianity that, while not the center of their lives, exists just about everywhere on the periphery -- from crucifix-shaped cake molds to the sterile white church that Martha attends on Sunday. But does the mere inclusion of these details indicate smugness or contempt? Hardly. Bubble is easily one of the more interesting films of the year, and more so for what it doesn't do than for what it does. Though our attention is focused on his troop of non-professionals, it's not the narrative that matters (again, think Bresson), but rather the way in which Soderbergh allows it to play out, and the means by which he gets us there. Just as he doesn't want us to see the "acting", so it is with the directing as well -- but don't think for a moment that the film has an amateurish quality to it. Soderbergh's fifteen-plus years of experience are in there, but just really well hidden. Bubble a remarkable experiment that works far better than imagined, and is one that should definitely not be missed. Bubble screens at the NYFF on Sunday 25 September @ 6:00 and on Monday 26 September @ 9:00. Click HERE for info and tickets.

Comments

[phyrephox]

Stellar review FB, even if we disagree, er, a lot. Two things though:

(1) What I found missing in your review is that, despite your praise, I don't see you identify what the movie is about...okay so "everything is either temporary, artificial or disposable" and there narrative isn't as imporant as how "it plays out"...but to what end? What is the film trying to say? I personally thought that everything was linked to the socio-economic status of the film's characters, and located the film's flaws in generally avoiding the issue.

(2) I hope it wasn't my review that you kept refering to with "knee jerk reaction" and contempt and patronizing! I did not see these things in the film, but rather saw them on the border of nearly every scene. In other words, it wasn't the details I thought almost-condescending (I loved the cross-shaped cake pan for example, as well as many of Hough's and Soderbergh's other details), it was that since the "point" of the film seemed to exist in the strangeness of this town, of these people, of their jobs, and of their lives (like, say, a Lynch, but obviously trying to root itself more in reality, though I find The Straight Story trying an do a similar thing asBubble, and succeeding), a strangeness that erupts from their unfortunate economic situation, a situation the film does not particularly focus on.

[girish]

As ever, Filmbrain, your review whets my appetite.

[Filmbrain]

Phyrephox -

The knee jerk comment was not directed towards you, but rather towards reviews like the one from The Hollywood Reporter, which was little more than an angry rant.

As for what the film is "about" -- I don't believe there's one catch-all answer for that. Soderbergh is trying several new things at once here -- from the non-profs to the the medium itself, and that hidden within the overall simplicity of the thing is quite a lot. I really didn't wish to delve too deeply in the review as many people haven't seen it yet.