Bubble

Lisa Swartzbaum of Entertainment Weekly opened the New York Film Festival screening of "Bubble" by introducing the writer Coleman Hough (a woman, to my minor shock). She said about 10 words and the screening began.

Upon the first scene, any film guru would note that it's amazingly captured on HD. Some scenes I couldn't believe weren't 35mm.

"Bubble" doesn't belittle the simple people it depicts, as many Hollywood-takes-on-small-town-USA films do, but really gives them great depth and complexity. Coming from a small town myself, I felt like I knew the people that were on the screen.

The neurotic "love" triangle that emerges in the film is wonderfully dark and comedic, as is the film entirely. From the assembly of the dolls in the factory to the simple lunch break conversations, everything has a seeded, underlying element of humanity that is both jocular and haunting.

Without giving away anything damaging to the story, "Bubble" is a great escape from Hollywood for both Soderbergh and the public alike with amazing performances by the non-professional leads and supporting cast and an ending that will make you say "Huh?"

8/10 (and for as much as I paid for tickets to the NYFF, Soderbergh should've been there dammit!)

Bubble (2005)

I think any movie by Steven Soderbergh was at least worth looking at if only because he takes what you might call safe chances. But they are chances. Some are brilliant or at least very successful, such as "Erin Brockovich" or "Traffic," and others are well done and worthy side trips like "Che" or even the recent "Contagion." But then there are clunkers like the well-intentioned "The Good German" shot using vintage equipment and trying hard to be the real deal 50 years late.

So "Bubble" looks like something straight from the Indie world--a small unknown cast, a simple kind of location shooting, modest production values, and full of decent sincere acting. And a decent idea, at least enough to draw you in: a group of people work in a struggling doll factory in an Ohio town and a new employee gets murdered. In a very believable almost documentary way the local detective looks for answers. And the murderer is found.

Well folks, that's it. There's a very long build up to the crime, setting up in fifty minutes what a good noir would do in five. We get to know the small cast of very ordinary folk. They are mostly likable, but all a bit quirky. (They live in West Virginia, actually, across the river from the factor.) There is no real suspense or curiosity required during this time, just patience.

Then there is the murder (not shown, just told). And the detective makes his rounds interviewing each of these people we now know as viewers. And we know kind of who might have done it or why. And then the crime is solved (and the perp is no surprise, and is intentionally not meant to be). And then the movie ends.

I don't know if there's some kind of surreal intention here, or if it really is about how mundane life is in Middle America even when a killing is involved. But it's not enough. The movie is short (75 minutes) so it's not the end of the world (as "Tree of Life" was for a lot of people, or "Barry Lyndon" depending on your taste). So try it out. The doll factory scenes are briefly interesting. The side characters are subdued and fine. The cop is wonderful and a bit drab.

You might decide this is a film about relationships since that ends up being the core of the movie, or about personality types (since these get dissected by the cop interviews) but if so, there are a million ways to make this more moving or interesting or odd or anything.

Focused mediocrity?

I really enjoyed this DVD. Especially after seeing Pirates II the day before. complete opposite in terms of overall complexity. But actually more engaging than Pirates. Johnny, Keira and Orlando as the main 3 actors in Bubble? Wouldn't work. Low key actors is the key to this film. The sets and scenery are genuine too. The plot is the classic intrigue. The alternate ending would have detracted from that. The ambiguity of certain scenes adds to the interest. The DVD extras are enjoyable as well. Soderbergh's commentary was interesting. The interviews of the main actors, also good. The alternate ending is worth checking out. The "making of" segment, also enlightening.

My husband and I saw Bubble at the Little Theatre in Rochester, NY on January 27. We went in expecting to enjoy it since we enjoy all kinds of films, and the subject matter resonates with us as working class people in our 40s. Most of the audience appeared to be upper middle-class people in their 50s and 60s. I sensed by the end of the showing that they did not like it. They probably also would not have liked Gummo, the film this one most reminded us of. People coming out of the earlier showing made comments like, "Well, what was THAT all about?" I hope that responses like that don't keep Soderburgh from making all the rest of the films in his planned series. More people need to think about the issues raised in Bubble.

Notable issues: Repressed emotions, due to constant care-taking of others, spending most of your time and energy just getting by, working in monotonous jobs, working all the time, not working at all, just surviving, just getting by. What is the definition of "friend"? What is art?

Notable images: The artistry involved in actually manufacturing the dolls, resemblance of Martha's face to the dolls' faces, actually seeing the emotions on the actors' faces when Rose is introduced to the other workers, Jake's apartment walls, still shots of the doll parts (especially the ones with the patent leather shoes on the feet), Kyle shoveling sawdust at the shovel factory.

The ending: It is simple and jarring. But it was enough.

The performances: Dignified and confident. I can't imagine myself doing as well as they did. They should feel proud of their accomplishment.

The lives of small-town workers, as insular as the title suggests, and the way they interact with one another unaware of these ties, real or imagined or wished for, is dissected in Steven Soderbergh's de-glamorized little experiment of a movie. It probably won't cause a big splash -- it's not meant to -- but to anyone aware of its existence, it should be seen, even when the experience may not be the most satisfactory.

Martha and Kyle work dead-end jobs in a doll factory. Nothing important happens to them, at least, not as envisioned by us, who may -- whether we're aware of it or not -- have better lives than they do. Martha dreams of going to Aruba for a vacation one day, Kyle wants to save money for a car. The exchange of small talk is a big part of these people's lives, a way of them to have someone who is there, who will listen, even when they may not respond back, or even care.

While I know it's been done before, I was surprised at how authentic the ad hoc dialog was: I felt myself thinking, I've had these exchanges of thoughts, dreams, experiences, even over coffee and fast food. I may not live in a small town like the nameless place in Ohio but I'm not that different from these people, and after all, aren't we all looking for something better? Context doesn't change things, it just places them in a different locale.

Martha and Kyle may not know it, but they have a lot more shared history together but because it's so mundane it looks irrelevant. How many times have we gone to lunch with co-workers every day on the clock at 1:00 PM, spoken the same small words while ordering the same food and beverages, and one day, when this doesn't happen, we feel lost? It's what happens to Martha at the arrival of the monkey-wrench that Rose represents.

Rose has a murky past that gets hinted at throughout her brief participation, and her sole presence is enough to cause the subtlest of shifts within Martha who continually watches her, maybe even without knowing it. I know people like Martha. They don't know you and they don't want to get to know you since you are the implied enemy, and they hint at only a veiled animosity while going through these practiced motions of social politeness and a willingness to "help". Rose, too, knows she is not liked by Martha and is also concealing it all under a Mona Lisa smile.

After all, Rose is the new girl, the one who is different, the one who -- in Martha's words -- scares her. But why? Because Rose will, in Martha's world, become a distraction to her perfectly organized world of small actions and repetitive complacency. Rose is restless, and that kind of people attract others who may have been sleepwalking through life and give them a possibility of change. Kyle is attracted to change and drops hints here and there. Now, whether they involve Rose or not is for his character to disclose to us, and even then, it doesn't matter if he does that or not: the story of BUBBLE isn't dependent on a fixed outcome because it's a story about real people, and their stories are less drama-heavy, less swooning, and entirely dependent on personal choice.

Had this been a Hollywood version, Martha would not have been the moon-faced woman we see here (which we've seen in any Walgreen's) but Kathy Bates. Kyle's and Rose's date would have had more interaction, sensual flirtation, the inevitable exchange of a romanticized kiss instead of this bland, awkward chit-chat in a sad bar. And even when it would have ended in non-chemistry as it does, there would have been more glitz and glamor. Here, it's again, just two people who have little in common past the initial spark, again sharing their hopes and dreams with some alcohol.

I know this type of movie has been done before, but BUBBLE impressed me and is still growing on me. These are relationships that are closer than the characters involved would like to admit to, and the actions or presence of one will dictate how the other will react. Martha is at the center of this triangle and is probably the most aware of the three: she's not quite there, but maybe a little too there at the same time. And that makes her story, and that of BUBBLE, so resonant.