Oscar -winning director Stephen Soderberg does not read reviews for a good reason

Stephen Soderberg adopted the spirit of filmmaking that allows him to be impressive in prolific production. Soderbergh can quickly photograph and edit, which sometimes allows it to release two films in one year. In 1996, “Schizopolis”, as well as the Gray Ansomy. In 2000, he released his famous Two of the main competitors of the Academy Award With “traffic” and “Irene Brocovich”. The year 2002 witnessed the launch of the “Full Frontal” drama and the “Solaris” science epic. The year 2009 was the year “experience of a girlfriend” and “the informant!,” While 2011 he had “infection” and “Haywire”. Just this year, I already released Soderbergh The haunted home movie “presence” And the crime drama “black bag”. The man cannot stop.

Soderberg was interviewed By the girls ’suicide site in 2009 To talk about “The experience of his girlfriend”, a movie starring the adult actress Sasha Gray (unrelated to Spalding). He said he loves to work on an instinct when filming a movie. It does not stop analyzing or questioning his decisions. Soderbergh is released quickly, with the discovery of shots as it goes. “Not a person is a result,” he says, but “a practical person.” He loves to make movies more than he loves to judge them in the media. The director will re -evaluate a movie later, after it has already ended. “I want to make them an amount of money and time I gave them to make them, then I just want to move to the next thing without affecting.”

Of course, when one sees films practical, they make criticism seem strange. The critic only sees the final producer, after its editing, completion and issuance of the public. So, the critic may begin to empty what the film means, social context, and the extent of his success in communicating his message. Soderbergh, who was previously focused on filmmaking, knows that the negative review could not change what he already did.

If one focuses on results, of course, this is a very healthy way to think. It encourages a certain degree of practical films, which depend on the completion of today’s work, and not on high ideas of art or inspiration. Soderbergh looks modest in this regard. He just wants to get the movie in the movie, solve problems, and continue his life. The critic, as he feels, cannot add to this process. If he makes a mistake, the review will not change that. And if one of his films says something slow, or it is not somewhat clear, then this will be something Soderbergh alone. In his words:

“When I stop making (movies), then I may one day sit and look at them and determine myself what is my success rate. At the present time, it is not related. Except if you are making a certain type of films-the art of art-and you know from the point of view of work that does not give up, do not aim to re-evaluate. Something.”

Many movie makers do not like to read reviews for reasons to defend the ego. If the critic is placed in a bad movie, the director will only increase in the notes. Or the critic may bring an unexpected explanation for his work that he did not intend or expect, which makes them feel that they did not convey their ideas well. Perhaps the critic will put his movie in a greater context they did not think, which makes them feel uncomfortable. Soderbergh does not have the late NitPicks time for a movie he has already done. He added: “When one movie appears, I usually made something else, or I am in the middle of something else, and I followed my head.”

The corresponding shops with suicide bombberg asked the fact that even in 2009, film critics of the major newspapers were brokenly demobilized. Many local papers were folding at that time, and the printed press was recently considered the means of death. Soderbergh did not want to see people losing their jobs, but he admitted that the criticism of the cinema has become widely stretched so that it could not be taken seriously as an art. He said that the technology made everyone a published critic, days of single critics and icons – Pauline Kyle cited As for example – it has ended long.

However, more vibrant, Soderberg said the movie was somewhat dead. He felt that films still affect people, but the other newer media have replaced films as the most important artistic coordination of our time. He said:

((Films) is more influential than it was and is less important than ever. It is influential in terms of how people behave and how they wear clothes, and also what they sacrifice. But in terms of importance? In terms of what they can do for us, how can it enhance us, I think it is still possible to enhance us, but I think there is still less important, but there is still ever before. The form of art anymore. ”

And if the films are no longer important as an artistic force, what is the benefit of the critic? Films are now just a commodity, one of the many forms of art recorded, confusion of American culture. Some penetrate a group audience and become a viral feeling that we can share. But with regard to leading technical movements, or influencing people’s ideas on a large scale, or in reality the formation of the country’s culture for the better, the film died for a period of time. Soderbergh made this statement in 2009. One may wonder whether his point of view has changed or has only been reinforced in the past 16 years.