‘The Underneath’: The movie Steven Soderbergh admitted was a failed experiment
As with any artistic medium, it’s nearly impossible for a director to create a perfect piece with every film. However, unlike some directors who may ignore their shortcomings, Steven Soderbergh is refreshingly honest about his own missteps. In fact, this self-awareness is arguably one of his finest qualities.
Soderbergh’s directorial debut Sex, Lies and Videotape may have made him the youngest director to win the Palme d’Or and Cannes, but a career of critical rollercoastering followed it. Most notably, he directed the 21st-century reboot of the Rat Pack movie Ocean’s 11, starring previous collaborator George Clooney, which spanned into a trilogy. Such a move proved that he was an artist with a keen eye for commercial potential.
Working across a wide range of genres and styles, Soderbergh’s filmography includes the critically acclaimed Erin Brockovich, the double-bill epic Che, and popular films like Magic Mike and Magic Mike’s Last Dance. These movies highlight his unique ability to continually evolve his craft. His work is marked by a clear sense of self-awareness, avoiding over-indulgence or gratuitousness.
But with such a style, there is always the possibility of a tepid turn. And the film that Soderbergh himself seems happy to admit as ‘bottoming out’ is his 1995 crime film The Underneath. Following many themes of classic film noir, including a botched crime and romantic intrigue, he saw it as “ultimately… kind of a mess”.
Speaking to Venice Magazine, he said of the film: “I didn’t quite unlock it or figure it out. Some things about it are interesting, but others aren’t. If there’s a successful element to The Underneath, it is finding a way to use colour in the same way that noir films used to use black and white. That was the one part of the movie that worked”.
With a sigh, he added: “Everything else about the movie I can’t defend”.
The Underneath came early in the filmmaker’s career, released only six years after his debut, so it’s understandable that not every experiment worked. After all, we can’t blame the guy for winning such accolades while he is still finding his style and voice. And that is simply what happened with The Underneath; he said: “It was a failed experiment, but a good experiment to attempt”. Soderbergh tried to do something new and experimental, but it failed. But why shouldn’t young filmmakers experiment and play with the medium without fear of critique? Isn’t that what makes cinema so interesting?
In the end, Soderbergh doesn’t regret making the film as he regards the ‘results of that experiment’ as being necessary in making its successor Out of Sight, which won the Edgar Award for ‘Best Screenplay’ and received two Academy Award nominations.
Soderbergh saw the film as being too rigorous for American audiences. “I think a big problem with The Underneath was that I was in danger of becoming too much like Antonioni,” he explained. “I think he’s terrific, but I think at some level, it’s not an appropriate style for an American filmmaker because it runs so counter to our zeitgeist. I appreciate the rigour of that style of filmmaking, but what I felt Out of Sight needed was a combination of being that thorough, with a much more jagged energy”.
So, if all else fails, we can simply attribute The Underneath’s defeat to the state of American sensibility and the pitfalls of becoming Michelangelo Antonioni.
