In fact, I suspect the cut scenes showed the unwashed masses not to be so darkly impulsed, which would mean that Soderbergh made the movie a little worse than it had to be! In other words, the director as auteur was just the guy who fucked up something. This is creativity?
That assumption has no basis whatsoever.
A suspicion is not an assumption. You can't change the meanings of words just because you want to be argumentative. The suspicion
is justified by Cotillard's character's reaction to learning that the vaccines released were placebo, along with the classroom scene. The judgment
is that leaving this subplot undeveloped mildly detracts from the movie in any event. And if the suspicion was correct, it amplified a thematic flaw in the movie as well. I was taking Harvey
's word that it was Soderbergh who excised the rest of the Cotillard subplot.
Re Soderbergh's style, it is obvious glancing at imdb that I've not seen much of his work (and also forgot he did Traffic.) Thus any stylistic signatures remain more or less unknown to me. Horizontal lighting, rapid shifts in perspective, a preference for midrange shots, a static camera in dialogue, moving camera in midscene, musical montage, whatever elements of Soderbergh's distinctive style might be are still eluding me.
Worst of all, I suppose, I still think monarchism is for nitwits.