Whoredom

email this story
read comments (23)
post a comment

In a week-old interview with the Village Voice's Aaron Hillis, The Girlfriend Experience director Steven Soderbergh is asked if the film, a portrait of a life of a beautiful high-end Manhattan prostitute, is a metaphor for Soderbergh's own life and career.

Sundance journalists who saw the film suggested that Soderbergh sees himself as the prostitute being paid big bucks to deliver certain high-end services and yet getting bad reviews from the movie-reviewing, buzz-spreading journalists, who are repped in the film by the sleazy Glenn Kenny character, who has it off with Sasha-the-prostitute and then pans her "performance."

Soderbergh answers that "it's kind of hilarious for somebody to look at that and assume I'm making some larger comment about my work -- or that the movie's an exploration of what happens to somebody when they get bad reviews. It's not a metaphor for anything." But later on in the interview he says, "I don't see any difference between what Sasha is doing in the movie and what I do for Warner Bros. The character in the movie is doing what she wants to for money, and so am I."

NSFW Crawford<< previous | next >>Bloody Subtitles Scandal

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on March 23, 2009 at 3:21 PM

comment #1

MilkMan says ...

If Steven Soderbergh was as good at his job as Sasha Grey is at hers he would be the greatest filmmaker of all time. Soderbergh does the Oceans films solely for the money. Anyone who has seen Sasha perform knows that it's more than just the money. Either that or she is the greatest actress of her generation. Which could be the case. Either way, I hope Sasha has a legit career after this movie. Sasha Grey exposes Megan Fox for what Megan Fox is: a pornstar who got lucky and met the right people. Does that make sense? Probably not. But it does to me. Sort of. Not really.

Posted by MilkMan at March 23, 2009 3:50 PM

comment #2

JD says ...

Wrong, Milkman. Whether you like the Ocean's films are not (I only really like the second one), it's hard to miss that they show a filmmaker indulging his every directorial whim with glee... and no real budget constraints. Why would Soderbergh NOT want to make those films?

Posted by JD at March 23, 2009 5:04 PM

comment #3

prairie_oysters says ...

This prevailing notion that certain directors, like Soderbergh, made studio pictures for purely mercenary reasons doesn't ring true. Any director, however skilled, who simply turns up to work and goes through the motions isn't going to make a very good film. And why would a studio want to employ a director in that frame of mind when there's plenty of hungry individuals who'd sell their grandmother for the gig?

Assuming the film doesn't lose the studio a tonne of money it's a win, win, win situation for the director. They get a fat studio fee so they don't need to sweat over where their next meal's coming from if they chose to go off and make an esoteric 'arty' film with more limited box office prospects, they get to do it again, they get to rub shoulders with A list talent on either side of the camera and most importantly of all they get to make a crass, dumb film. If they were 'all art' they just wouldn't go there. Soderbergh has as cheesy dumb taste as the next person and gets to work it out of his system whilst being paid a huge wedge. I never understand his disingenuous commentary about his studio work tbh.

Oh... I get it. It's so that the aRt crowd don't think that's really him up on screen. It keeps him lily white in the eyes of the intelligentsia. The crafty bugger.

Posted by prairie_oysters at March 23, 2009 5:09 PM

comment #4

115thDreamer says ...

MilkMan - it makes sense, don't worry. But now you have me imagining Megan Fox in a porno, doing the one thing Sasha is known for, and I ain't talkin' about tap dancin'. Jesus, I'm still at work here....feel dizzy....mercy.

Posted by 115thDreamer at March 23, 2009 5:12 PM

comment #5

Glenn Kenny says ...

Just because Soderbergh makes a certain analogy in an interview doesn't validate the idea that the movie's exploring prostitution as a metaphor. And I don't think anybody who worked on the picture was putting that across either. We (writers Koppelman and Levien, Soderbergh, and myself) based my character not on me, or on other movie critics, but on actual dudes who actually "review" escorts on the web. They're out there. Not hard to find. Not metaphorical.

Having finally seen the picture, by the way, I was pretty happy that the "prostitution as metaphor" theme suggested by some of the reviewers was a wash. If you wanna think that's what the movie's about, you're entitled. But wrong.

Posted by Glenn Kenny at March 23, 2009 6:57 PM

comment #6

hawthorne says ...

Speaking about Soderbergh, I just watched The Limey again this week. What an awesome movie. He should make more movies like this. The way he edits bits of the movie "Poor Cow" into it is amazing. And the ending with the young Terrence Stamp singing the Donovan song Colours is perfect.

Posted by hawthorne at March 23, 2009 7:05 PM

comment #7

ZayTonday says ...

I really really wanted to like Che but it was SO grating. Slow as hell, and this is coming from someone who loves all of Terrence Malick's movies including The New World, The Assasination Of Jesse James and many other movies that are considered too long and too slow.

Posted by ZayTonday at March 23, 2009 7:49 PM

comment #8

ZayTonday says ...

And yes, I may not have made it clear enough but I am aware that Malick didn't do Jesse James.

Posted by ZayTonday at March 23, 2009 7:51 PM

comment #9

Chase Kahn says ...

'Che' is everything Jeff has said and then some -- there wasn't a film out last year that could even touch it (with the exception of 'Gomorrah', which I didn't see until this year).

Posted by Chase Kahn at March 23, 2009 8:12 PM

comment #10

Devin Faraci says ...

The metaphor is a wash? Why get a film critic to play the escort critic? Aren't there other Hollywood types in other roles? Aren't many of the clients in the movie specifically in film and TV?

Now, I don't think it's 1:1 metaphor, and even allowing that Soderbergh wasn't being consciously metaphorical, it doesn't take a mangling of the text to find the metaphor. At the end of the day, what the filmmakers wanted to say becomes secondary to what people take from the film.

Posted by Devin Faraci at March 23, 2009 8:18 PM

comment #11

Glenn Kenny says ...

Like I said, Devin, you're entitled.

Maybe once you get all the names and professions of the other cast members, you can draw up a chart or something.

Posted by Glenn Kenny at March 23, 2009 8:52 PM

comment #12

corey3rd says ...

Wasn't there an entire breakdown about how American Gigolo was Paul Schader exploring his relationship with Pauline Kael?

All three of Soderbergh's Ocean's films are crap when compared to the Sinatra original. That had an amazing ending that Clooney, Pitt and Damon didn't even touch in their smug supergloss flicks. I should have left my ticket money on the dresser after that trio of lifeless screws.

Far as the Limey goes, part of that genius goes to Lem Dobbs, the screenwriter. Listen to their commentary track where Dobbs gets nasty about how critics praised certain shots that he wrote in the script (especially the warehouse shoot out).

Posted by corey3rd at March 23, 2009 9:04 PM

comment #13

Circumvrent says ...

The funny thing about Soderbergh is, whether he admits it or not, his "whore" movies are the ones that are much more well-crafted and satisfying to an audience. If you can make any assumptions about somebody based on their works, you could say that Soderbergh is an analytical guy who's constantly looking to distance himself from things he cares about the most. So, like Kubrick, his best films are ones where he hands a total unemotional attachment to the material: Out of Sight, Ocean's 11, Schizopolis, Traffic. Metaphorically speaking, he's better at the wide shot than the close-up, emotionally.

But there is a great yin/yang, wash/rinse cycle to his two different styles of moviemaking, and it's always fun to see how one influences another. But is "The Informant" supposed to be the fun studio flick or the weighty indie? I'm at a loss as far as that one's concerned.

Posted by Circumvrent at March 23, 2009 9:32 PM

comment #14

MilkMan says ...

Sometimes I get the feeling that Soderbergh feels as if he is underrated or something. The guy won Cannes at 26, an Oscar at 38, and gets to sleep with Jules Asner every night. So why is he so touchy? I would be happy is he kept making films like Schizolpolis and Bubble and Full Frontal and, it looks like, The GFE. He gets to do what he wants AND he gets to make bank. WTF is his problem?

Posted by MilkMan at March 23, 2009 9:36 PM

comment #15