That Time A Director Beat Himself At The Oscars (And Never Got Nominated Again)
(Welcome to Did They Get It Right?, a series where we look at Oscars categories from yesteryear and examine whether the Academy's winners stand the test of time.)
Making a movie is hard. A shocking statement, I know. When you direct a film, you are utilizing a tremendous amount of your time and energy to devote to a project that more often than not takes years of your life. So, when a director releases two films in the same year, I'm always impressed that they had the bandwidth to turn these films around so quickly. The rarest of the rare, though, is when the director gets nominated at the Academy Awards for Best Director for multiple films within the same year.
The first was at the 2nd ceremony, when Frank Lloyd received three of the seven nominations for "Drag," "Weary River," and "The Divine Lady," for which he won. The second came the following year for director Clarence Brown, who was nominated for both "Anna Christie" and "Romance." He lost for both. Fast forward eight years, and Michael Curtiz gets nominated for "Angels with Dirty Faces" and "Four Daughters." He also lost for both.
This phenomenon has only occurred once in the subsequent 84 years of the Oscars. At the 2001 Oscars, Steven Soderbergh was nominated for Best Director for both "Erin Brockovich" and "Traffic," for which he won. Lloyd, Brown, and Curtiz would all go on to receive more nominations in their career, but the 2001 Oscars remains the sole instance of Soderbergh ever being nominated in that category. Despite being one of the most important American filmmakers of the last 35 years and actually having an Oscar, it's rather shocking how little Oscars success the man has had, especially given the volume of outstanding films he has made.
Beginning on a high
At the very beginning of his career, it looked like Steven Soderbergh could have had the makings of an Oscars darling. He burst onto the scene in 1989 with the groundbreaking independent drama "Sex, Lies, and Videotape." U.S. independent cinema at that time did exist, but it was very much under the radar. The 1980s were a time of mainstream Hollywood dominance that prioritized franchising, spectacle, and a pretty conservative view of the world, and breaking through that noise was tough. "Sex, Lies, and Videotape" did just that. The independent boom of the 1990s with names like Quentin Tarantino, Richard Linklater, and Kevin Smith was all made possible because of Soderbergh's film.
Not only did the film help put Sundance truly on the map and go on to win the Palme d'Or at Cannes, but it also found an audience, grossing nearly $25 million on a budget of just over $1 million. "Sex, Lies, and Videotape" made a major impact, resulting in Soderbergh earning a nomination for Best Original Screenplay at the Oscars. He didn't win, as "Dead Poets Society" took home the award in a fiercely competitive year, but his foot was in the door. This was a phenom in his mid-20s getting nominated for his first movie. The Oscars, especially the Oscars of the 1980s, rarely recognized transgressive material, and Soderbergh's nomination signaled a new wave was coming.
However, he couldn't ride that wave. While all these other independent filmmakers were honing their particular styles and establishing themselves as singular auteurs, Soderbergh wasn't all that interested in just making "Sex, Lies, and Videotape" again on a bigger budget with bigger stars. He needed to zag, and zag he did.
A hard career pivot
What separates Steven Soderbergh from so many filmmakers is his desire to always try something different. Considering he was someone foundational in the independent movement and not looking to latch onto it, he embodies that independent spirit of wanting to experiment. His next picture was "Kafka," a pseudo-biopic of the existential novelist Franz Kafka. It was a film that aimed to incorporate and emulate the writer's work in how his story was told. It didn't really connect with anybody. After that he made "King of the Hill," a deliberately old-fashioned Depression-era drama that was well-liked but tanked at the box office, making just over $1 million.
Things got worse with his next film, the neo noir "The Underneath." The word "bomb" doesn't even do it justice. "The Underneath" made a shocking $536,000. It didn't help that the goodwill "King of the Hill" received wasn't there either. Oh, and if you thought his next film would have to do better than that, guess again. In true try anything fashion, Soderbergh then made an experimental comedy for a quarter of a million bucks called "Schizopolis," starring himself in the lead role, and it made $10,000. Your eyes aren't reading that wrong. $10,000. The aforementioned Tarantino, Linklater, and Smith are riding high at this point, and Soderbergh's career is already at this point not even a decade after "Sex, Lies, and Videotape."
This is not a mark of quality on any of these movies. It just demonstrates how completely uninterested Soderbergh was in connecting with a mainstream, Academy-friendly audience. He was going to follow his artistic spirit where it took him, and the people didn't come with him. While admirable, you can only do that in show business for a short while.
Reconnecting with the people
After spending about a half-dozen years trying a bunch of different things that for one reason or another weren't grabbing the attention of the Academy, the critics, or the public at large, something fell in his lap that completely turns things around for Steven Soderbergh. He elected to make a mid-budget crime film adapted from an Elmore Leonard novel with two actors on the verge of superstardom. In 1998, Soderbergh released "Out of Sight," and it completely reignited his standing in the industry. It's also arguably the director's best film.
"Out of Sight" is stylish, sexy, clever, and a whole lot of fun, announcing to the world that George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez are the absolute real deal. At the box office, the film made $77 million worldwide, more than all of Soderbergh's previous films combined, and he started winning awards again, most notably the Best Director prize from the National Society of Film Critics (where the film also won for Best Film and Best Screenplay). Notably, though, the love for Soderbergh was mostly coming from critics organizations, as they are the most likely people to reclaim someone they once heralded when given the opportunity.
At the Oscars, "Out of Sight" did ... fine. Scott Frank got nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay and the legendary Anne V. Coates got a Best Editing nod, but they lost to "Gods and Monsters" and "Saving Private Ryan," respectively. Soderbergh may have been unjustly left off the Best Director lineup in favor of sentimental trash like "Life Is Beautiful," but his name hadn't even been in the conversation since "Sex, Lies, and Videotape." The rebound was in full effect, and it wouldn't be long before he actually did get nominated. And nominated he was.
The miracle year
Thanks to the success of "Out of Sight," Steven Soderbergh had options open to him. On the one hand, he could look through the projects gestating at a company and see if he had a take on any of them, or he could try and get one of his passion projects off the ground. Soderbergh opted for both.
"Out of Sight" was produced by Universal Pictures and Danny DeVito's Jersey Films. Also in their stable was the real life story of Erin Brockovich and her fight against the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, which had been knowingly contaminating the water of a small California town, causing numerous illnesses and deaths. So, once he wrapped up his 1999 film "The Limey" (which continued his critical praise streak), he could jump into "Erin Brockovich" with one of the biggest stars in the world in Julia Roberts.
Meanwhile, Soderbergh had long been trying to get an adaptation of the 1989 British TV show "Traffik" that would transpose the material to the drug trade between the United States and Mexico off the ground. Unfortunately, something of that scale wasn't exactly something people wanted to invest in during Soderbergh's wilderness period. But now that he had some juice again and could get a star like Michael Douglas to be in it, he finally got the green light, which also included having final cut, featuring several significant characters who only spoke Spanish, and serving as his own cinematographer.
Both films were beloved, and both films were gigantic hits. Domestically, "Erin Brockovich" brought in nearly $125.6 million, and that was just $1.5 million more than "Traffic." These are two R-rated movies for adults that were blockbusters, and when awards time came around, their presence was a foregone conclusion.
The 73rd Academy Awards
Amazingly, it was never a question of which film Steven Soderbergh would be nominated for. He received double nominations everywhere, including the BAFTAs, Golden Globes, and the DGA. He also won virtually every critics prize under the sun. Soderbergh was destined to break that over 60 year streak of no director being nominated against themself at the Oscars.
What was more up in the air was if he was actually going to be able to win. After all, which film do you vote for? The critics groups had the benefit of being able to pair his two films together for the prize, but whenever he was directly competing with himself throughout the season, he lost. And his biggest adversary was not Ridley Scott, whose "Gladiator" went on to win Best Picture. It was Ang Lee for his wuxia epic "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," who ended up winning those BAFTA, Golden Globe, and DGA prizes. Those institutions have never been overly welcoming of international films, but they are certainly more so than the Academy, particularly at that time. Lee winning Best Director at the Oscars — for an action film, no less — was always going to be a tougher sell with that voting body.
As to why they went with "Traffic" over "Erin Brockovich," there are a couple of reasons. The film for which Julia Roberts won her Oscar was released over one year before the ceremony took place. "Traffic" was released the final week of 2000, having its reputation crest at just the right moment. The U.S.-Mexico drug trade was also a big, weighty topic of importance. Between the two, it's easily the more Academy-friendly option, though I think "Erin Brockovich" is the superior film.
Ironically enough, I believe Lee was the rightful winner this year.
Riding the wave
In recent years, the Academy has been desperate to try and include well-made populist entertainment among their nominees. Mostly this is due to the thought that their inclusions would boost ratings, but also, it has to do with the notion that expertly crafted filmmaking isn't just reserved for serious dramas. That is why you see such strong pushes for last year's "Top Gun: Maverick" and this year's "Barbie." I am all for that if the films do feature that superior craft. It's when you want to nominate things like "Spider-Man: No Way Home" that I take issue.
Two decades ago, the Academy didn't have this mindset at all. They wanted serious dramas. Now, that could mean mid-budget character pieces or sweeping historical epics, but they wanted to see an obvious stab at being taken seriously. This is how Ron Howard won Best Director for "A Beautiful Mind" the year after Soderbergh took home his award. Meanwhile, Soderbergh was busy making one of those expertly crafted populist entertainments that today people would be begging to receive Academy attention.
I am, of course, talking about "Ocean's Eleven," which was the fifth-highest grossing film of 2001 worldwide. Obviously, there had been excellent heist films before this for decades from countries all over the world, but in the modern era, this is the film by which all other heist flicks are judged. And frankly, almost none of them hold a candle to it. "Ocean's Eleven" is Soderbergh showing to the world that he could be the best commercial filmmaker in the business if he so wished. If the Academy's horizons were broader 20 years ago, I think Soderbergh would've been a no-brainer Best Director nominee. Instead, he had the industry power to make whatever he wanted, which seemed more important to him.
Academy friendly material in non-Academy friendly packages
Now that Soderbergh was both an Oscar winner and a bona fide money maker, he went back to that same "try anything" impulse that governed him in the early to mid-1990s. However, he was working with much bigger budgets and much bigger stars this time around. Notably, he teamed up with George Clooney as producing partners, and their stature allowed them to make some truly wild stuff. They followed up "Ocean's Eleven" with another remake, this time of Andrei Tarkovsky's incredibly heady science-fiction drama "Solaris," which infamously received an F Cinemascore. They then made "Ocean's Twelve," but it was done in the style of an offbeat Euro hangout movie that swerved far away from its predecessor. Both of these movies are fantastic — don't get me wrong — but they were outright rejected.
Soderbergh also made some movies seemingly perfect for the Oscars, but his desire to stretch himself always got in the way. The Academy loves a biopic, especially in the acting races. But when Soderbergh makes one, he does it about the highly-controversial revolutionary Che Guevara. Not only that, it's a two-part film that totals over four hours in length and is mostly in Spanish. With "Erin Brockovich," the Academy showed they were up for a story about corporate greed and corruption. So, you'd think the Matt Damon-starring "The Informant!" would fit right in there, but instead of a fight-the-system drama, it's a comedy focused on this bumbling whistleblower where most of the supporting cast is made up of stand up comics. He even made what appeared to be a Big Pharma exposé in "Side Effects," but was actually a kind of trashy erotic thriller.
Again, all of these are pretty great movies, but their sensibilities stray so far from what the Academy likes to go for.
Steven Soderbergh and the theaters
Since his Oscar win, Steven Soderbergh has only made one movie that truly fits squarely into the what the Academy loves. Some might include "Magic Mike" because there was some buzz for Matthew McConaughey's performance in the Best Supporting Actor category, but the film itself and Soderbergh's direction of it were never on the Oscars' radar in a major way. No, the one film he's directed that hits all the right notes — no pun intended — for the Academy is his biopic of Liberace, "Behind the Candelabra."
Not only is this a biopic, it is a biopic about a famous musician, which is an extra sweet spot for the Academy. It stars Michael Douglas and Matt Damon, both of whom are already Oscar winners. The Academy was also in a post-"Brokeback Mountain" and post-"Milk" era by that point, where the notion of nominating a film about queer people (especially famous queer people) wasn't entirely out of the question. So, what happened?
Well, the movie didn't play in theaters. Only one company was willing to put up the money for "Behind the Candelabra," and that was HBO. That's right. A film that cost about $23 million to produce that starred two unquestionable movie stars about a subject guaranteed to receive awards attention was only going to get made for TV. That meant the awards the film, Soderbergh, and Douglas walked away with were Emmys, not Oscars.
Shortly after "Behind the Candelabra," Soderbergh announced his retirement from making movies, and the whole industry of theatrical moviegoing was a major factor for it. Thankfully, that retirement was shot-lived, but his relationship with theaters remains strained to this day. Plus, if he still had any desire for Academy approval post-"Traffic," that's completely gone by now.
In his f*** it era
One of the first filmmakers to jump into the pool of streaming was Steven Soderbergh. These companies just handed out loads of money for people to churn out movies with tremendous creative freedom for their services. That's the kind of environment Soderbergh can thrive in. He wants to make a pseudo-heist movie about sports agents shot on an iPhone? Sure. He wants to make an essay-esque comedy about the Panama Papers where Meryl Streep plays multiple characters, one of which has her in brownface? Sure. He wants to make a movie about a group of older women crossing the Atlantic Ocean on the Queen Mary 2 that is almost entirely improvised? Sure.
As long as these streamers are willing to shell out cash to filmmakers, Soderbergh can only say, "F*** it," and make whatever he wants. After all, that's what he's been doing his whole career. Very few filmmakers in U.S. cinema, especially ones that have reached the kind of success he has, have the conviction to do things on their own terms the way Soderbergh does. Whether he's working with tens of millions of dollars or a few hundred thousand, he makes the film he wants to. Sometimes the people go with him. Sometimes they don't. But his constant invention and reinvention always makes for the chance that he could hit with the masses or the Academy again.
Over his career, Soderbergh has directed 32 narrative feature films along with several concert films and television series. The man never stops working and very rarely ever repeats himself. Even when he has a franchise, he's finding ways to dramatically switch things up tonally and stylistically. I believe Soderbergh would much rather continue being able to have this career than get nominated for Best Director ever again.
What films should Steven Soderbergh have been nominated for?
Steven Soderbergh's two Best Director nominations are obviously too few for what someone of his talent and career should have. By my count, he should have five. In what is probably my most controversial take regarding this, those five nominations do not include one for "Traffic," the film he actually won for. I think "Traffic" is a very good movie, but the competition of the year is such that the only nomination of his that survives for me is for "Erin Brockovich." The rest of that year rounds out for me with Ang Lee for "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," Wong Kar-wai for "In the Mood for Love," Edward Yang for "Yi Yi," and Kenneth Lonergan for "You Can Count on Me."
As for his other four nominations, the first obviously comes with "Sex, Lies, and Videotape." You replace Peter Weir for "Dead Poets Society" and Jim Sheridan for "My Left Foot" with Soderbergh and Spike Lee for "Do the Right Thing," and you're golden. Next comes "Out of Sight." I already proposed kicking out "Life Is Beautiful" there, which would actually make life beautiful. Next comes "Ocean's Eleven." The winner, Ron Howard for "A Beautiful Mind," is the easy boot there, though I'd also hear a case to get rid of Ridley Scott for "Black Hawk Down." Finally, I believe he also should have been nominated for the unfairly maligned "Solaris." If you need someone to kick out, how about the winner, Roman Polanski for "The Pianist?" Remember when the Academy did that? Yeah, we'd all like to forget.
That still would make Steven Soderbergh two decades removed from being nominated for Best Director, but five nominations feels far more correct to me than two, which is absurdly low.