*** Official "FULL FRONTAL" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Full Frontal isn't a great film, but I thought it was an interesting piece of work. (I'm prepared for that to be an unpopular opinion.) This is not going to appeal to mainstream audiences by any means (Julia Roberts fans expecting Runaway Bride won't know what to make of this).

This is Soderbergh's "lo-fi" film. He uses the Robert Pollard (of Guided By Voices) song "Do Something Real" over the end credits, and it's a very telling choice. Pollard and GBV are noted for making rock and roll reminiscent of The Who and The Beatles but with lo-fi recordings that include mistakes, distortion, etc. Full Frontal is like that, trying to add something to the final product with everything hanging out. Lo-fi music has limited appeal, and this lo-fi film will too.

Nicky Katt is hilarious as the stage actor portraying Hitler. He's easily the most memorable part of the film. Yes, a lot of Full Frontal is familiar terrain, but I enjoyed seeing a filmmaker take some chances.

 

[Brook K]

Most of the reviews I've seen have been very poor, but Eleanor Ringol Gillespie in the Atlanta newspaper who has something of a hard on for Soderbergh gave it an A-.

I'll probably see it but my priorities are Signs, Rain (the New Zealand one), and The Fast Runner.

 

[Guy_K]

I saw Full Frontal earlier. Boy, what a dissapointment
I guess I wasn't expecting such an experimental out-of-the- norm film. Hopefully Solaris will be better.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Full Frontal isn't a great film, but I thought it was an interesting piece of work.

That about sums up my reaction. The film makes very little concession to an audience's desire for a story it can follow. You could accept the fracturing of time in The Limey, because you had Terrence Stamp's Wilson at the heart of the story holding it together. There's no such unifying element in Full Frontal, and the viewer gets randomly tossed among the fragments of various intertwining stories for a very long time before the connections begin to emerge -- and when they do, they're not very interesting. It's never a good sign when the most memorable parts of a film are the cameos and in-jokes.

M.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Here's my review, although I think I can sum up my distaste with a single question:
Why the heck would Stephen Soderberg (et al) try to be Gary Winick? It's like Barry Bonds deciding to hit in a game with the opposite hand, just to see what it's like to try and play without the gifts and abilities he was born with and earned through hard work and practice.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Why the heck would Stephen Soderberg (et al) try to be Gary Winick?

I'd say the comparison's unfair to Gary Winick. Tadpole is a much better-looking and substantially more entertaining film than Full Frontal.

M.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Ah, well, I haven't seen Tadpole. Sam The Man gave me a pretty good idea what he could do with a good cast and a digital camera.

 

[Ted Todorov]

Quote:

I think that is just plain wrong. IMHO, sex, lies and videotape was a totally conventional movie, even compared to The Limey not to mention some of the ones noted above.
My opinion on Full Frontal: I was disappointed that it wasn't funnier. I LOVE movie movies in general, but all of the great ones, Living in Oblivion, State and Maine, Sullivan's Travels, The Player, etc. etc. are very funny. Being serious about movie-making is not a good idea -- it's just not a very serious topic. I didn't think it was remotely self-indulgent or "too experimental", I mean jeez, we are confronted with eleven oceans worth of conventional, cookie cutter crap. I am grateful for any trip off the beaten path. Yes, Full Frontal is a bit of a failure, but it's "experimantal" nature is not the reason.
Ted

 

[Derek Miner]

I made it out to see FULL FRONTAL tonight, and while it is by no means a great film, it is - by far - the most interesting thing I've seen this year.

Jason, I think your analogy on Soderbergh is flawed. You hint that the guy's talent is an ability to create something compelling for an audience. But I think that Soderberg is more concerned with aping styles rather than creating them. ERIN BROCKOVICH, to me, seemed to be more about trying out the "crowd-pleaser" genre rather than an attempt to say something. And that's the most obviously commercial film he's done (and yes, that includes OCEAN'S ELEVEN).

So no, it didn't surprise me to see something completely out there in FULL FRONTAL. And I was actually intrigued by many aspects of the movie. Does it sometimes seem self-indulgent? Sure, but there were only a few moments scattered throughout where I felt that.

I might need to see more movies, but I thought the approach to the characters in FULL FRONTAL was completely interesting. There were some aspects of the on-screen lives that I hadn't seen in other movies. There seemed to be a theme about things left unsaid, including partial conversations that leave the audience to fill in the blanks. The whole structure of the movie asks the same thing. Ultimately, I didn't mind having to invest that much into the movie, because what I saw WAS compelling.

 

[Ted Todorov]

Does it sometimes seem self-indulgent? Sure, but there were only a few moments scattered throughout where I felt that.

I think that a movie being self-indulgent (which I am not saying Full Frontal is) is not a bad thing. A movie ought to be self-indulgent on some level -- i.e. the director should want to please himself. Who else is s/he going to please, the audience? Sure:
But who is the audience? It isn't some monolithic block with a single taste. You can't possibly please everyone, and the greater the number of people you try to please, the more watered down and less personal the final product is going to be.
In real life, of course, "pleasing the audience" means pleasing a bunch of studio executives. I would much rather the director be "self-indulgent" and deliver a movie that pleases him/her, than to make one that pleases the studio, because I think that my taste is likely to be closer to that of a film-maker than to that of a studio executive.
Ted

 

[Ryan Peter]

I liked the David Fincher and Brad Pitt cameos. Did anyone catch what Brad's shirt said about Fincher during the shot of the first magazine cover with him?

 

[Ryan Peter]

You know I think this film is going to find a following on home video a la Office Space or Big Lebowski. There is so much there that multiple viewings enhance it. I was just thinking tonight about the line "It only lets you take out 300 dollars" when he owes her $500. I dunno, the line strikes me as funny.
Seriously though, I expect this film to take off once it hits DVD (especially if it comes out with a nice special edition). Another reason is it's hard to watch in the theater. On a television it will be a lot more watchable because of the lower resolution of the format.

 

[Jodee]

There were so many great Nicky Katt lines, like:

"I'm sorry if I offended your Jewish friends. Do you think the comment about ovens went too far?"

and the whole scene when Hitler is breaking up with Eva Braun:

"I'm swimming in Lake Me right now...I'm too involved with my work...I could only cause you pain....."

and when he answers his beeper:

"Fucking Goebbels."

I also loved it when Catherine Keener was driving. "Fucking movie people. Can I cross the street, Movie cops?"

I found this movie really funny. And I don't understand the criticism that it's "self-indulgent". I think it's more humble, making fun of themselves than at all self-indulgent, which would require some arrogance.

And I also understand the criticism that there was no plot and that it was pointless. All these characters has story arcs that played out over one day. Lots of stuff happened.

And as far as the "point"? Well, I think that last shot of the film said it all to me (especially with Mary McCormacks's voice-over "It was just like a movie."). The point was that nothing in Hollywood is real. It's all artifice.

 

[Derek Miner]

"Fucking Goebbels."

Would you believe I was the only one out of ten or fifteen people in the theater who laughed at that? And I laughed hard. Funny that they laughed at just about every other thing Nicky Katt said.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I guess I wasn't expecting such an experimental out-of-the- norm film. Hopefully Solaris will be better.

With James Cameron as the executive producer, I don't think you'll have to worry about it being unexcessible. He only makes mainstream films. Many of them happy to be quite good, which is why he garnered such a reputation. Considering his ego, I'm surprised how smoothly the partnership between Soderbergh and him apparently went. It's on my must see list, that's for sure.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Just rented it, enjoyed it quite a bit, so I revived the thread.

But I think that Soderberg is more concerned with aping styles

Derek, I don't quite think this is the case. More like challenging yourself by trying your hand at different genres, methods, and styles.
For me the film made perfect sense, I was rarely confused in the least though getting hit with info on all the characters in the opening made me want to create a scorecard. It was clear to me that the 35mm was a fake film right from the start (he lists them as actors in their bios for chrissake), it's a convention we've seen used before. It was fun to see him play with the levels of reality, and if you take the time to listen to the commentary or the interviews on the DVD you see that this is exactly what he was going for.
I felt pretty good that this was the intended theme or pursuit with the film, but that feeling was solidified with the final pull-out shot in which "reality" within the film is also spoiled as we see that the plane is yet another set. To me that says to the audience, "you knew the Pitt movie was a fake film within a fake film, but you were willing to accept this other reality just because we did it in DV".
And that is a very interesting point. I know in my film classes this idea comes up a lot. Which styles lend themselves to reality or believability and why?
I loved a couple of touches. One was the fact that the crazy Dracula neighbor of Pierce's got put into the script he had written. Underwood recites a bit of dialog about having such a neighbor within the "film" being shot.
I also loved the idea of "The Limey" existing within the fake film (he is on the plane with Blair and Julia). Here we have 2 universes crossing over except that Stamp is in "reality" while Blair/Julia are in fantasy within their film. It also works as saying "Soderbergh is making this other film starring "Blair" and "Julia" and has slipped in a cameo to his other film, so that it becomes a making-of documentary at that point.
As I said some 6 months ago, what do people want from this guy. The hard core fans bitch and moan when he "sells out" by making O11, but then they turn on him when he goes as far as possible in the other direction. He was quite forthcoming about the fact that he felt the karmic need to go as low as possible. And on top of that he ran this thing out for $2m...I think a grade A director that is willing to put a piece together for that little deserves a little room to experiment. He ended up breaking even with the film which is a lot better than most directors can say.
Anyway, while I rented the film I will now be buying it. I think it fits well in the Soderbergh catalog. His work continues to intrigue me. Perhaps I'm just in synch with his style, but I feel like I get each move he makes in his films, and often that is reinforced when I listen to an interview or commentary and he basically says exactly what I thought he was going for.
Consider that my full disclosure for any Soderbergh recommendations I have given or will give.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Forgot to add that I agree that the Nicky Katt stuff was hilarious. The blood drinking debate was great.

 

[Ryan Peter]

Maybe the film is easier to watch on a small screen. It really was hard on the eyes blown up so big.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Well handheld and DV definately do create various visual reactions in people. Just as some people couldn't tolerate Blair Witch (besides the narrative I mean) or even the beach scene in SPR. Neither of those films bothered me at the theater, but a smaller screen does tend to help counter any fatiguing or disorienting effects those styles create in the theater.

 

[Ryan Peter]

I'm a big fan of BWP and Dancer in the Dark. This movie looked *really* bad in the theater though. Ebert's review focuses on this fact. Anyway, I'm saying that's why the movie did so bad in the BO. Maybe in a few years it will catch on in home video. It might be a bit too long though, it could have been trimmed a bit.

I think if I blew up my home videos they'd look about the same. I wish they priced this lower, I definitely want to give it a shot on DVD.