I made this exact comment to a friend of mine almost a year ago, that the influence of this aesthetic and production mode would be greater than was expected, and that the “m-word” would, in fact, have little if any bearing on that influence. Granted, I give Matt Dentler a lot of credit for pushing the movement. I always will. But, the term itself will never be as great as the work of the filmmakers who were ushered into its shelter. Its the work that, yes, inevitably served as the influence. I, at least, am glad it’s the case.

Um…

Is there any difference between mumblecore and say, Dogme ‘95?…

I don’t see much of an influence from mumblecore on Soderbergh. He was shooting DV way back with Full Frontal — he even appeared in magazine ads for the XL-1. Furthermore, Soderbergh’s two recent “digital experiments” (he shoots EVERYTHING digital now with his Red, EVERYTHING: Girlfriend, The Informant, Cleo, etc.) were both locked off on tripods — not handheld like mumblecore.

As far as Baumbach is concerned, both Squid and Margot were handheld slices of life, so it’s not unrealistic for him to see an aesthetic relation to his own work in mumblecore.

@Mr. Milich: Yes, Soderbergh has shot digitally before, and yes, with Bubble he worked with non actors, but with The Girlfriend Experience, he steps further away from traditional narrative structure and production methods than I think he ever has before. I’m not that interested in which filmmakers use tripods and which don’t. Full Frontal is a very different film than TGE, which (I imagine) is a very different film than The Informant. The thing that sets TGE apart, for me, is the idea of trusting non-actors to generate their own words. This is not something that you can really suggest came from Dogme 95. It also, as I say above, was not invented by Swanberg (again, I didn’t use the word “influence”). I’ll say it again: that an Oscar winning filmmaker who could probably do whatever he wants is using the same techniques (tripods aside) that have most recently been the province of penniless filmmakers working on the edge the industry … that’s kind of interesting, no?

One last thing. Bubble was completed in 2005. It played the NYFF that year, though it wasn’t released until early 2006.

So Soderbergh was pursuing this strategy before anybody knew who Swanberg was. Or mumblecore. Or that whole style of filmmaking.

Like I said, it’s just a mass consciousness thing.

Let’s give Soderbergh some credit: even though it wasn’t shot digitally, “Schizopolis” is just about as close to smash-and-grab filmmaking as you can get. He’s always been eager to change aesthetics.

Gerwig is talented enough to deserve assimilation into the mainstream. Swanberg on the other hand… he’s crafting an interesting voice but I don’t see what he’s doing that Bujalski hasn’t.

And Mr. Millich, I agree with the mass consciousness sentiment, but I don’t think anyone was really pushing for improvised, DIY, film-school sensibilities which is what the ‘mumblecore’ movement seemed to indicate.

Yes Dogme was cinematically rough-and-ready, but improvisation and naturalism it wasn’t always. Mumblecore as the title suggests also seems very tied to the communication of a certain generational age-group.

Also I think Bujalski is more of the forerunner of ‘mumblecore’ and his output started in 2002 with Funny Ha Ha.

A few things confuse me about this–things about the post, things about the situation.

Karina really does set up a weird causal relationship, in which Steven Soderbergh is somehow emulating Joe Swanberg. (She’s cleared this up in the comments, kinda by refuting her own words.) The differences between, say, BUBBLE, and the mumblecore movies are many–a very strict and calculated formalism, a 3-act script, and the use of tightly controlled “non-actors.” Most of the mumblecore films are assemblages of “friends and acquaintances” who improvise a great deal, and in the case of Swanberg, virtually everything–narrative shape, beats, etc–is created in the edit. (Truly, he would be lost without digital editing.)

BUBBLE’s coming from a completely different place. Fast and cheap, yes, but concerned with personal truths, em, I’m not so sure.

In any case, sounds like THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE is getting closer to the world of improvisation.

All well and good. But then Karina, in the comments, says she’s not concerned with whether or not a director uses a tripod, and this just seems strange: are you saying you’re not concerned with a director’s formal approach to his/her art? That’s a little limited, no? Formally, something like the first half of CHE and BUBBLE are miles and miles from mumblecore–this doesn’t interest you? FULL FRONTAL and the second half of CHE might be closer…this is one of the ways we talk about cinema, right?

What really puzzles me has nothing to do with Karina’s take, but rather Noah Baumbach’s take: he’s using Joe Swanberg as a camera person?!? In my opinion, nothing in Swanberg’s films suggests an exceptional, or even unique, eye. He’s, what, gonna be operating for Harris Savides or something? I’m assuming this is on video? Has Swanberg ever even worked with, like, lens choice?

Too much weirdness. Swanberg is a cunning little networker, though, I gotta hand it to him–somehow, he’s framed himself as a pioneer, and it’s sticking.

Ah well. Everything seems to be working according to his plans…mwahahaha.

Greta Gerwig + Noah Baumbach = The Demise of Noah Baumbach

Also, I agree with Pierre about Gerwig’s substantial talent.

i’m really late to the party here but i’ll chime in anyways (i’m a spout commenter virgin). i admit, making swanberg your camera man seems kinda like making peyton manning your starting left tackle. however, baumbach is a smart guy, a really smart guy. if he wants swanberg to run camera it is b/c he wants a specific amateurish/off-the-cuff look and feel that must complement his narrative. you can’t exactly go grab someone off the street and get an eye that understands filmmaking to the extent swanberg does. say what you want about swanberg, the guy has made a LOT of movies and episodic content. while i was writing this he made two more movies, as a matter of fact.

i, like a lot of people, am not exactly excited about seeing ben stiller in another movie (maybe EVER), but i am excited to see greta finally get a sink-or-swim chance at hanging with more seasoned, professional (if you will) talent.

and yes, john m. is right i think. swanberg is much more a lesson in networking than anything else. like a lot of folks making the festival rounds, i’ve never cared for his films, never found them that interesting and have always found them hard to sit through — mainly for the almost complete absence of cinematography and production design. there are other “mumblers” that make much better films; bujalski is a genuinely talented filmmaker, which was apparent for anyone who saw FUNNY HA HA without knowing a thing about him or the yet to be named movement.

when it comes down to it, all members of the so called “mumblecore” movement should be hella thankful that critics and festival audiences are paying enough attention to give them a name in the first place. it means people are watching your movies, which is something to embrace, not shun.