Love it. Thanks for sharing. It's such a narrow line he's walking in this. Defining cinema and movies as different entities can ring as pretentious, but I agree with the sentiment and can understand why he thinks in different terms. (Although, I don't think you can have a piece of shit that is also good cinema (even by his definition of cinema)). When he talks about how studio heads should be good at finding talent and then letting talent do its thing (within limits) -- I couldn't help but think of Robert Evans effect on Paramount. Or Pixar's effect on Disney. Or Katezenberg's effect on Disney. Or both Coppola and Spielberg's fascination with George Lucas. People who are good at spotting talent seem to have a real track record of making both cinema and profit in the film business. I also like how there's an admission that "This might just be the times." Although, I don't think he believes that (nor do I), but I really like that he's looking at it from all angles. Maybe it's just the inevitable evolution of film. My personal take -- the studios are dinosaurs. They're bloated and the massive overhead associated with them will be the toppling point. I don't think they'll go away (some may go under), but for the most part I think the brands will be around. What will be different are the 15 Executive Producers on every film. Distribution of film in a digital age isn't the massive job it once was. In fact, the bigger portion of it is in advertising and promotions. I really love that it is Sodenberg saying this stuff. I've never really been able to define a Sodenberg movie to friends, other than to say it is distinctly Sodeberg. No one else would have made Contagion the way he did. And for that, I really enjoy it, despite what quibbles I may have. On a side note: I'm really looking forward to Iron Man 3. Shane Black has always had a strong voice and am looking forward to what he does with a massive tentpole. Likewise, Joss Whedon seemed to have no problem creating a very Joss Whedon Avengers with a studio tentpole. (I know this isn't exactly what Sodeberg is talking about--as both of them have very commercial tastes and track records. But just the same, I do think there is room for the more obscure. I just think studios need to be shown the profit in them... or make tradeoffs with known entities, you know, like "Wes Craven you make Scream for us, we'll let you make Mr. Holland's Opus."

I found it interesting that Soderbergh didn't seem to have a cohesive thesis, at least not one that could be tracked. I feel the biggest problem is that the movie business is a 20th century model trying to thrive in a 21st century world. As James McCormick (above) said, it is a problem that there are 15 executive producers wanting a piece of the pie. And there is unbelievable overhead at all levels: the executive offices, the studio, and even the local theater. We are well into the phase of history in which music artists are figuring out how to exist in the 21st century - and I think it's hard to argue that MUSIC hasn't benefited from the changes of the past decade. It always takes some companies going under for some new ideas and models to emerge. Yes, there is more bad music to sift through, but the sifting is worth it. Now, my hope is that the movie business will be revolutionized. We are just beginning to see the first waves of change, and although it might mean we don't get to see Iron Man 7 because a company goes belly-up, I believe the world could use a few more Beasts of the Southern Wild and a lot more independent flicks.

Let's not forget how much "Beasts" is part of a system (Sundance, KRF, SFFS) as "Iron Man 3" is part of the system (Studios)... the real problem is that every film in the theater requires a "system".... the film in and of itself is not enough.... the future winner: the one who makes online-self-distribution profitable for the investors.

[...] Steven Soderbergh: The State of Cinema (gointothestory.blcklst.com) [...]

[…] A talk by Steven Soderbergh on the state of film.  […]