In a recent blog post, “Top Ten Stories for Indies and Resolutions,” Brian Newman reiterated something that I’ve heard a few times this year: “Bubble didn’t work.” Bubble is Steven Soderbergh’s HD movie supported by Mark Cuban enterprises that was an early day-and-date experiment. The project and all that it might foreshadow was all the talk. From NPR in January 2006, “The new low-budget film from director Steven Soderbergh promises to shake things up in the movie industry.” I also remember reading an indieWIRE sum-up of a Tribeca panel on the subject in late April where both Soderbergh and Wagner (of Landmark) were calling Bubble a success. So what is it? A failure or a success?

Word around the water cooler was that the film wasn’t that great and its simultaneous theater, cable and DVD release made so few ripples as to indicate one way or another ramifications for the future of the whole industry. I finally had a chance to watch the film, and really understand now what Soderbergh’s meant when he said, “I was interested in this because I knew that creatively…this was the only way to get a film like Bubble made, period.”

The film makes no pretenses at entertaining expectations. It employs nonprofessional actors to tell a story about workers in a small town factory. This ain’t Julia Roberts playing Erin Brockovich or any such star-studded angst-ridden indie film that one would expect to fork over $15 to see. The main characters are the proverbial working poor, living in trailers, sharing cars and going from job to job; they have midwestern accents and did I mention, they work?

If the setting and characters are untraditional, the filmmaking also does little to draw us into the story in traditional ways; I think I can count the number of close-ups on one hand. I would call the film unsentimental and though that was a put off at first, I found myself drawn in by how different it is. It is an incredibly honest portrayal and very engaging if given a chance. It is the kind of movie that can’t be made these days and it should be no surprise that audiences are wary, whatever screen it plays on.

I’ve said this before, and perhaps my screening experience post put me back in this frame of mind - it’s a big leap to say that the reason box office (maybe) is lagging is because of these experimental release strategies. And multi-million$ returns for a film that took multi-millions to make isn’t the likely path for an independent film (whatever way you define that) anyway. Perhaps at issue is communication: different folks have different ideas of what constitutes success and it depends on which aspect of the business is yours. I still believe that if a film embodies the filmmaker’s vision (IE it is a film they set out to make) and that product grosses more than it took to make, than it is a success.

Sure, it’s wonderful when a film receives 10 out of 10 on RottenTomatoes or grosses millions at the box office, but what about defining success as enabling the filmmaker onto their next project and supporting companies to continue releasing films? Modest business growth is no longer acceptable and it seems like a sad state of affairs considering the reality of movie business. Bubble is a good movie that made money, and Soderbergh and crew shouldn’t have to be defensive about that.

More:
Unrequited: Steven Soderbergh’s Bubble by Tom Hall
Some thoughts on what `Bubble’ means for theaters and studios by Scott Kirsner
U.S. cinemas back out of Soderbergh’s Bubble at CBC Arts