Bubble (2006)

Roger Ebert called this film a "masterpiece". I value his opinion, but I have to disagree in this case.I would call Bubble a game experiment. Director Soderbergh uses non-actors, and films them in their own environs. He gives us a story that involves little action, comedy or drama. Then he sits back and waits to see if we might be entertained or provoked by the work.Bubble is kind of like a whodunit, but it is not one. It is kind of like a love triangle, but it is not one. Soderbergh's main characters lead lives of muffled surrender in an economically depressed small-town area (played by Belpre, OH and Parkersburg, WV--areas I know well). Another character moves into the area, representing an outside viewpoint and a modicum of gumption. You can practically hear the town and its people oxidizing. The new girl, Rose, is someone who hopes to escape the area. But none of the characters are people you would want to know. So how much can we care about what happens to them? The story must be about the situation and its economic underpinnings, but the story diverts us from that viewpoint, also.You might wonder why it's called "Bubble". The main characters work in a doll factory. As the final credits roll, we see some defective doll heads, with bubbles in the rubber. Without giving any of the plot away, this might suggest that the story is about defects within individuals' psyches.In the end, I think Soderbergh's noble experiment fell flat. There is not enough here to interest the average viewer.

Kyle is a young man who works at a repetitious job in a doll factory in a small mid-western town. He works most closely with Martha, an overweight and less than attractive middle-aged woman whom Kyle depends on for rides to work. Martha's social life outside of work consists of taking care of her aging father. Rose, an attractive young woman, is hired and joins Martha and Kyle on their daily breaks. The conversations in the lunch room are perhaps the most mundane ever put in a commercial film.I began to wonder what direction this could take that could possibly hold my attention, but Rose's entering the picture began to change the personal dynamics in way that kept my attention. Rose presented a challenge to Martha's maternal feelings for Kyle (in fact there is a suggestion that there may be more than maternal instincts involved). As the movie moves toward its final resolution we get to know the three characters: Kyle is a study in passivity, Rose knows she wants more and will do what it takes to get it, and Martha is seen to have strong emotions under her plain exterior.The inside of the doll factory makes for a suitable backdrop for this downbeat tale among the working poor. I was surprised that making the dolls had not been more automated than is pictured, since many of the tasks are robotic. There is a lot of manual work involved, for example, one of Martha's jobs is to affix eyelashes to the dolls, and Kyle works on forming the doll legs. The plot develops very subtly; this movie is not one that will set you back on your heels. The use of non-professional actors in all roles works here. I doubt that any director could have gotten this level of authenticity from professionals. There are rewards here for the patient viewer.

A really good movie makes you think. However, while BUBBLE certainly made me think, I'm not sure if it's good or not. The story is simple, direct, and void of shock or surprise. The strength of the film lies in the believability of the actors, the atmosphere (creepy doll factory...'nuff said), and the simplicity of the cinematography. I suppose the fact that I still have it on my mind several days after watching it should be a vote in it's favor, but what bothers me is that it didn't make me question anything nor did it present a challenge to me as a viewer. Instead, the indecision over the movie was simply...did I like it?I just don't know. Hence my middle-of-the-road vote.

Bubble is a shockingly brilliant record of our time. I voted it a nine. How could it get an R rating for "language" though? There's little harsh language. I'm thinking that the ratings people were shocked and upset with the harshly real portrait of the banal life so many Americans are forced to lead due to the double edged sword of an economic system/culture that exploits so many workers while inundating them with consumerist mentality. People holding down multiple jobs without any hope of ever "getting ahead." All work, little play - with little else to do other than watch television if there is free time. This is a harsh movie because it is such a clear depiction of the hopelessness that many youth are headed for. Imagine the consequences if they are allowed to see it?