Inside Steven Soderburgh’s “Bubble” 

        After Steven Soderburgh directed “Oceans 12” he made a film called “Bubble.” The difference between the two is enormous, beginning with the budgets. Whereas “Oceans” cost $110 million to make, “Bubble” cost $1.6 million. Part of the cost of “Oceans” was due to the salaries of the top tier actors: George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts (to name a few). Then there were the various locales, such as Paris, Monte Carlo, Rome. It’s a long film — over two hours — and has a professional gloss; gloss comes at a price (as do special effects, such as exploding cars). An investment like this carries a responsibility: the film must succeed at the box office. Actually, the risk of failure was minimal. “Oceans 11,” which preceded it (and was also directed by Soderburgh), was a huge success; the sequel was using the same formula, most of the same cast. Sequels to successes are a shoo-in. The film was a hit, and grossed (at last count) a whopping $362 million. It brought in $252 million more than it cost to produce. 

       “Bubble,” on the other hand, grossed a mere $261,966; it lost over $1.3 million. I don’t think Soderburgh ever imagined it would be profitable. It’s a film with an absence of all those elements that gave “Oceans” its appeal to the general public. So why did he make “Bubble”? 

         While the production of “Oceans” wound down Soderburgh sent a casting director to the southeastern Ohio town of Belphre (population 6,441); her job was to scope out the citizenry. When she spotted someone who had the look she was after she observed them more closely; if they seemed promising, she introduced herself and asked to talk to them. That’s how the three principle characters in “Bubble” were recruited (all were residents of the nearby town of Parkersburg, West Virginia). None had any experience acting in a movie. They were paid, of course, but what fraction of Clooney’s salary did Debbie Doebereiner (an employee at KFC) receive for playing the role of Martha? The film was shot entirely on location in Belphre, which is in an economically depressed area of the country. In keeping with the town and the settings for the scenes (a factory, the interiors of trailer homes, etc.), the approach to the cinematography was no frills. “Bubble” has a plain, dreary look, and it has no elaborately-constructed shots. The film didn’t take long to make, and it’s running time is also short: a mere seventy-three minutes. 

       As for the plots of the two movies, after I had seen “Bubble” I watched “Oceans 12,” and I was totally confused. What the hell was going on? Something about a group of ultra-cool professional thieves who pull off intricate and exceedingly high stake jobs. They’re under pressure to come up with many millions of dollars that they owe to an ominous mob boss. I’m not sure of the specifics, but “Oceans” isn’t meant to be understood. The rapid cutting and the interspersion of disconnected scenes work against understanding. The film is aimed at audiences who are content to float along on star power, glamorous locales, gloss. Since none of those factors have any appeal to me — I need a plot and characters I can relate to on some level — I quit the film after an hour. I had seen enough. 

       There's a murder in “Bubble” — and a mystery involving who did it — but before that takes place the three characters are developed. They all work in a doll factory, and for them success or fulfilment has been relegated to the realm of the inaccessible; they’re just plodding along in life. The person who gets the most focus is Martha. She’s a woman in her forties, overweight, unmarried; she lives with and cares for her elderly father (who watches TV); she does favors for people when asked (gives them rides, etc.). Her exterior is placid, compliant. The other two main characters are a young man and a young woman who has a small child. Also notable is the police detective; this part was played with authority by a real-life detective in Belphre. 

       In his commentary on the film Soderburgh talked of the approach he took with this cast of non-professionals. He wanted to get naturalistic portrayals, not performances. In order to prevent them from reflecting on their role, they weren’t given lines to memorize; instead they were told, just before the scene was shot, what the situation was and what they needed to convey. Their task was to translate his directions into words and expressions and actions. To do this they had to rely on what they would actually feel and say and do in such a situation. He didn’t have multiple takes of a scene — one or two was the norm — because he didn’t want self-consciousness to set in. The actors weren’t even provided with the entire plot; they had inklings of where things were headed, but, as in real life, they weren’t entirely sure. 

       Some of the cast members were better than others, but all were able to create people I could understand and believe in (though not necessarily approve of or sympathize with). That said, the film would have failed if it were not for Debbie Doebereiner’s depiction of Martha. She’s the film’s most complex character, and we’re required to unravel her inner life. You do get inklings of a subterranean element to her personality. This is achieved partly through the script — how scenes are constructed — and partly through the instinctive depth of Doebereiner’s portrayal. I felt I knew Martha; she’s someone I’ll not forget. 

       In watching “Bubble” I realized that other films which aspire to show us real life don’t do the job. This applies even to neo-realistic films. “Bubble” seems like a new genre: a fictional documentary. The conversations people have are banal, but they capture how people really do talk. The locale is not prettied up, nor is it made dramatically bleak; it’s just a nondescript town. The murder that takes place isn’t shown on screen; we see the body in a short glimpse of police crime scene photographs. The only event in which voices are raised involves an argument between the young woman and her ex-boyfriend; otherwise, the scenes are quiet, almost muted. The musical score is minimalist. 

       “Bubble” isn’t a masterpiece. But, for me, it’s was an engrossing and compelling film for reasons that would cause most people to reject it. It’s devoid of the usual trappings of cinematic entertainment; it makes demands on the viewer; it’s grim. But isn’t something that’s unique an asset if it’s done with a purpose? Isn’t it good to have to think? And life can be grim, as it is for these characters. 

       Many people say, “I watch a movie to be entertained.” “Oceans 12” provided escapist entertainment to millions. And in this era of violence, sex and vulgarity it seemed, from what I watched of it, fairly innocuous. But the characters were unreal contrivances involved in a lot of shallow nonsense. The movie was fluff. I too seek escapism, but I need it to escape into something of quality and substance. And I can find those elements in some comedy and adventure films. It’s been said that we are what we eat; the same idea could apply to what we consume in our choice of entertainment. 

       To go back to my original question: why did Soderburgh make “Bubble”? The answer lies in the very nature of the film. It’s the polar opposite of his smash success, and as such it can be seen as a repudiation of “Oceans.” He made “Oceans” for money; he made “Bubble” because it meant something to him. In his commentary he expressed pride and a sense of accomplishment in the film. His accomplishment was this: he gave us real life on the screen and made it deep and moving.