Anytime someone is willing to declare anything “the best” rather than “one of the best,” they open themselves up to quite a bit of criticism. You can practically feel people racing to the comments section to tell you you’re full of shit (if people on this site used the comments section), but who really wants to spend their lives without ever giving a real opinion? I don’t, which is why I’m proud to say that Steven Soderbergh is the best director working today. I’m not saying “The Best American Director” or “The Best Director” in any given genre—-not that I even could, since Soderbergh works in so many different genres—-I’m saying, the best period.
But why? If someone had no idea who I’m talking about (and I’m sure there are plenty who aren’t familiar with his name but have definitely seen a few of his movies), what case could I make to them that would persuade them Soderbergh is the best? Better than the other longtime big S’s (Spielberg and Scorsese)? Better than the new-school, live wire Andersons (Paul Thomas and Wes)? Better than Eastwood, Terrence Malick, Michael Mann, Spike Lee, David Fincher, Christopher Nolan, and Tyler Perry? Yes, yes, yes, yes, barely but yes, yes, and hell yes. It doesn’t mean that all of those directors aren’t great in their own right—-well, except for Perry—-it just means that if someone put a gun to my head, and told me to pick the best director alive, I wouldn’t automatically say “Woody Allen” or strain my brain to come up with the most off-the-wall Iranian director I could think of for cool points. If I were honest and not trying too hard, I’d say Soderbergh.
The reason is because the man is the most versatile director in history. He has never been trapped by a genre (so long Billy Wilder, Hitchcock, John Ford), an obsessive theme (sorry Welles), or a singular style (later Kubrick). He can release a star-studded, ultra-realistic outbreak thriller (Contagion), an action movie (Haywire), and the first ever male stripper film (Magic Mike) in only a ten month period. All in different genres with different styles and all of them actually good (sorry, Tyler Perry).
Today is an entertainment environment where people keep wanting you to make your hits over and over again. Which is why even shitty directors like Michael Bay, Brett Ratner, McG, Todd Philips, and the guys that crank out Adam Sandler’s movies can be said to have a “style” or, more accurately, a brand. For Soderbergh to not only refuse to do that, but reinvent himself literally every time he picks up a camera is nothing short of a miracle. [He directed the crowd-pleasing Erin Brokovich and the excellent, ambitious crime epic Traffic in the same year…then made the mega-hit first Ocean’s Eleven movie the following year followed by experimental indie Full Frontal and the sci-fi drama Solaris, well…you get the idea.]
It’s also drawn plenty of criticism. Some serious critics have misjudged Soderbergh’s chameleonic style as a lack of style, and seem frustrated that they can’t reduce him to an easy “type” of director. After all, how can the same man who made the Ocean’s Eleven trilogy make microscopic, ultra-realistic indies like Bubble (a criminally underrated gem of authenticity)? And how can he make both well?
Even inside the movies he makes, he defies expectations. He can take “the stripper movie” formula and flip it on its head by not only making the first male stripper movie, but also making it work on deeper levels. He can get a career-best performance out of Jennifer Lopez in Out of Sight (who really hasn’t been good in anything since) while generating a romance Entertainment Weekly said was “The Best of the Last Twenty Years” in a crime movie based on a relatively minor Elmore Leonard novel. His “failures” are more interesting than most director’s successes. Not to mention the man practically gave birth to modern independent film with “Sex, Lies, and Videotape.”
And I think it’s that bridging of the old-masters (Michael Mann, Eastwood, Scorsese) with the new auteurs that probably owe him their careers (Fincher, both Andersons, Spike Jonze) that really lets him explore the best of both worlds. And, unlike other successful directors of that time period (cough, Tarantino, cough) he’s been amazingly productive, clocking more films in any given three year period than Terrence Malick has made in his entire three decades of film. Of course, if we were just talking about output, Woody Allen or Tyler Perry would be at the top of the list, they aren’t because Soderbergh pulls off a feat no other director alive has: he averages one or two movies every single year (not to mention all the great films like Syriana he produces), almost religiously makes them in different genres, and somehow manages to make the clear majority very good.