Sex, Lies, and Digital Tape: "The Girlfriend Experience" Trailer Shows An Indie Godfather Getting it Right (Again)

By: Paul Proulx Posted: April 17, 2009 Filed under: Trailers

Steven Soderbergh's legacy already seems to be set in stone: the filmmaker who skillfully (some might say deliberately) alternates between mainstream crowd pleasers and small time cerebral fare. In fact, the fluctuation is so balanced, that by this point, it's hard to ignore it for the (possible) gimmick that it is. And I for one have been, and will continue to be, on board for the whole show.

Cue the trailer premiere for Soderbergh's latest film, The Girlfriend Experience, which appears to fall under the latter of his two styles -- something we'd all assumed by now.

For fans of this end of the Soderbergh spectrum, the film appears to hit all the right marks: minimalist cinema verite handheld video, but with enough curiosity and mystery to keep it fresh. And apart from the sociological/financial experiment that is the 'gimmick' of flip-flopping back and forth, there always is a twist - a test, almost - that is applied to each film, and the one everyone's talking about on this one is the casting of pornstar Sasha Grey.

The trailer itself is quite the masterwork of its own - both perplexing and completely self explanatory - almost playing out within its own narrative. Shot over a period of 16 days with a cast of mostly unknowns, The Girlfriend Experience breaks his aforementioned suggested rule of conduct, as his last film, Che (despite its supposed $80 million budget and nearly-5-hour running time) was as covert as its namesake. Is it possible he simply makes what he feels? That he truly is experimental - even whilst treading through big budget territory? It's not as though he 'holds back' on something like the Ocean films--which are always aesthetically and structurally stimulating. The huge cast of A-listers may have very well been the experiment. Respectively, Che's running time (as well as its ambition) was its experiment. Its 'gimmick.'

But is 'gimmick' really the right word for what he does? If his movies simply weren't any good, then, yes, you could call them gimmicks. Ironically, because they are often quality films - a few masterpieces - they're just as often referred to as 'pretentious.' But I ask anyone: name a great work of art that isn't pretentious.