I like the DVD format mainly because of the commentary tracks. I'm not kidding. I know a lot of people never listen to that stuff, but I never fail to. In fact, while I rarely buy no-frills DVDs, if the only frill is a commentary, I'm in. I might even buy a DVD more because of the commentary than the film itself. And important directors like Stephen Spielberg who are just too busy to ever record a commentary track? I hate their guts.
Not to say all commentaries are recorded by the director. Actors, producers, special effects guys, editors, even film critics have been known to do them. Some commentaries have a bunch of people sitting together and shooting the shit as they watch their movie. Others are edited together from a number of commentaries. Some have an interviewer to keep the conversation going. Some use recordings from entirely different interviews. Some people have notes in front of them and/or a vibrant memory. Others don't seem to remember a single thing. Sometimes, the commentary was done before the movie even comes out. Other times, they haven't seen the film since it came out decades ago. Some even have video elements (I personnally don't think I need to see them sitting there with a microphone).
But it may be more useful to the newcomer to subdivide commentary tracks into types, even if those types tend to cross over. In reality, there are four major types, and the rest are really tones.
The Types:
Anecdotal: Most commentaries have at least some of this. The people involved mostly talk about things that happened on the set, how they got involved with the project, how they got along, and what lines people ask them to repeat when trapped in an elevator with them. These are mostly interesting, but may come off like fluff to real cinema buffs. Then again, people who are more interested in the stars (you know who you are, Access Hollywood fans!) will get off more easily on anecdotes. Actors tend to only do anecdotal tracks, and you have to watch out that various documentaries and featurettes don't just repeat the information. Since most commentaries have an anecdotal slant, I won't recommend anything in particular.
Technical: Again, most commentaries will have some of this. The people involved mostly talk about how the film was made. Special effects, editing, film stock, location scouting, script-writing, catering... There's a lot to cover, depending on your job on the movie. People with technical jobs tend to go for more technical tracks, obviously, though our brains are so wired to speak in anecdotes, that even a key grip won't focus exclusively on those aspects. It can be an intensely interesting film-making lesson (like anything by Robert Rodriguez, in particular El Mariachi), or it can be a deadly boring dissection of filters and lenses (like Ridley Scott's Gladiator).
Historical: Certainly the purview of critics, but people who have made biopics, litterary adaptations and historical films might indulge in a mostly historical track. Here, the people involved might discuss how the film differs from the book, true story, or whatever. Or, in the case of critics, the life and times of the director (et al.) would be discussed, how the film was received, and how it fits into the history of cinema and that of its particular genre. Pick up any Sam Peckinpah movie, and you'll get that kind of thing; commentary #1 (of 4!) on the extended Lord of the Rings compares the films to Tolkien's books; and so on.
Fictional: Some novelty tracks go for the truly bizarre. For example, Bubba Ho-Tep (which can be summed up thus: Elvis and a black JFK fight a mummy in a retirement home) has a track by the "real" Elvis, with Bruce Campbell reprising the role and commenting on how he would never cuss that way, etc. The Cohen Bros.' Blood Simple has a faux-film historian discussing how the movie was apparently changed from an Unbearable Lightness of Being-type human drama into a hick-filled thriller by Hollywood types. It's insane. These are rare, but usually fun. The fictional element means it's almost like a second movie.
The Tones:
Gushing: Sometimes, the people are really rather enamoured with the work of their colleagues, especially if one of them is either sitting in the room or dead. They'll go on and on about how it was great working on the movie, and how important it is, and how proud they are, etc. etc. Sounds painful the way I'm describing it, but it doesn't have to be, so long as the word "genius" doesn't come up every 5 minutes. Praise for one movie can sometimes annoyingly become disparaging to others. For example, the entire Sam Peckinpah collection has been commented by a trio of experts on his work, and while they are very interesting indeed, there's a tendency to reduce modern cinema to MTV-style cutting and ADD plots. That is a disturbingly narrow view.
Critical: Here, the people involved will severely question their own choices, often years after the fact. Sometimes they laugh it off (as with many a Doctor Who commentary), other times, it's so harsh that everyone around the table will start consoling the critical member of the panel (again, Doctor Who commentaries are a good example - the directors seem to place the blame on themselves a lot). Obviously, the former is preferable to the latter.
Funny: Some personalities are a hoot to listen to on commentaries. In fact, the best reason to buy a Kevin Smith film on DVD is to hear him and Affleck go at each other. Usually, a track will be funny because the people involved have that kind of camaraderie (the Hobbits' track on Lord of the Rings, for example). Some people will just lie up a storm with a deadpan delivery, usually by playing egomaniacs who aggrandize themselves and trash everyone else. Shatner, Clooney, Tom Baker... Guys like that.
Vaccuous: The worst commentaries are those where they've go
t nothing to say. In many instances, this translates into people silently watching the movie, then going "This is so good, I can't help but get lost in it." Then, some more silence. The very worst, however, is when the director goes on and on about some altogether obvious stuff. Basically, they've got so little to say about the production, that they'll just walk us through the action as if it were suddenly a radio play. For some reason, this most often happens on rentals, and rarely on films I bought outright. Probably one of the reasons why I don't rent.
So there you have it, in a nutshell, movie fans. No great revelations, no secrets to life, the universe and everything, no great insights. Just a quick run-down for those of you who are curious about commentary tracks, but were afraid to lose a couple hours experiencing one. From now on, any DVD mini-review will come with a Commentary Rating culled from this post. After all, if you're gonna pay for the extra, you might as well check it out.
Not to say all commentaries are recorded by the director. Actors, producers, special effects guys, editors, even film critics have been known to do them. Some commentaries have a bunch of people sitting together and shooting the shit as they watch their movie. Others are edited together from a number of commentaries. Some have an interviewer to keep the conversation going. Some use recordings from entirely different interviews. Some people have notes in front of them and/or a vibrant memory. Others don't seem to remember a single thing. Sometimes, the commentary was done before the movie even comes out. Other times, they haven't seen the film since it came out decades ago. Some even have video elements (I personnally don't think I need to see them sitting there with a microphone).But it may be more useful to the newcomer to subdivide commentary tracks into types, even if those types tend to cross over. In reality, there are four major types, and the rest are really tones.
The Types:
Anecdotal: Most commentaries have at least some of this. The people involved mostly talk about things that happened on the set, how they got involved with the project, how they got along, and what lines people ask them to repeat when trapped in an elevator with them. These are mostly interesting, but may come off like fluff to real cinema buffs. Then again, people who are more interested in the stars (you know who you are, Access Hollywood fans!) will get off more easily on anecdotes. Actors tend to only do anecdotal tracks, and you have to watch out that various documentaries and featurettes don't just repeat the information. Since most commentaries have an anecdotal slant, I won't recommend anything in particular.
Technical: Again, most commentaries will have some of this. The people involved mostly talk about how the film was made. Special effects, editing, film stock, location scouting, script-writing, catering... There's a lot to cover, depending on your job on the movie. People with technical jobs tend to go for more technical tracks, obviously, though our brains are so wired to speak in anecdotes, that even a key grip won't focus exclusively on those aspects. It can be an intensely interesting film-making lesson (like anything by Robert Rodriguez, in particular El Mariachi), or it can be a deadly boring dissection of filters and lenses (like Ridley Scott's Gladiator).
Historical: Certainly the purview of critics, but people who have made biopics, litterary adaptations and historical films might indulge in a mostly historical track. Here, the people involved might discuss how the film differs from the book, true story, or whatever. Or, in the case of critics, the life and times of the director (et al.) would be discussed, how the film was received, and how it fits into the history of cinema and that of its particular genre. Pick up any Sam Peckinpah movie, and you'll get that kind of thing; commentary #1 (of 4!) on the extended Lord of the Rings compares the films to Tolkien's books; and so on.
Fictional: Some novelty tracks go for the truly bizarre. For example, Bubba Ho-Tep (which can be summed up thus: Elvis and a black JFK fight a mummy in a retirement home) has a track by the "real" Elvis, with Bruce Campbell reprising the role and commenting on how he would never cuss that way, etc. The Cohen Bros.' Blood Simple has a faux-film historian discussing how the movie was apparently changed from an Unbearable Lightness of Being-type human drama into a hick-filled thriller by Hollywood types. It's insane. These are rare, but usually fun. The fictional element means it's almost like a second movie.The Tones:
Gushing: Sometimes, the people are really rather enamoured with the work of their colleagues, especially if one of them is either sitting in the room or dead. They'll go on and on about how it was great working on the movie, and how important it is, and how proud they are, etc. etc. Sounds painful the way I'm describing it, but it doesn't have to be, so long as the word "genius" doesn't come up every 5 minutes. Praise for one movie can sometimes annoyingly become disparaging to others. For example, the entire Sam Peckinpah collection has been commented by a trio of experts on his work, and while they are very interesting indeed, there's a tendency to reduce modern cinema to MTV-style cutting and ADD plots. That is a disturbingly narrow view.
Critical: Here, the people involved will severely question their own choices, often years after the fact. Sometimes they laugh it off (as with many a Doctor Who commentary), other times, it's so harsh that everyone around the table will start consoling the critical member of the panel (again, Doctor Who commentaries are a good example - the directors seem to place the blame on themselves a lot). Obviously, the former is preferable to the latter.
Funny: Some personalities are a hoot to listen to on commentaries. In fact, the best reason to buy a Kevin Smith film on DVD is to hear him and Affleck go at each other. Usually, a track will be funny because the people involved have that kind of camaraderie (the Hobbits' track on Lord of the Rings, for example). Some people will just lie up a storm with a deadpan delivery, usually by playing egomaniacs who aggrandize themselves and trash everyone else. Shatner, Clooney, Tom Baker... Guys like that.Vaccuous: The worst commentaries are those where they've go
t nothing to say. In many instances, this translates into people silently watching the movie, then going "This is so good, I can't help but get lost in it." Then, some more silence. The very worst, however, is when the director goes on and on about some altogether obvious stuff. Basically, they've got so little to say about the production, that they'll just walk us through the action as if it were suddenly a radio play. For some reason, this most often happens on rentals, and rarely on films I bought outright. Probably one of the reasons why I don't rent.So there you have it, in a nutshell, movie fans. No great revelations, no secrets to life, the universe and everything, no great insights. Just a quick run-down for those of you who are curious about commentary tracks, but were afraid to lose a couple hours experiencing one. From now on, any DVD mini-review will come with a Commentary Rating culled from this post. After all, if you're gonna pay for the extra, you might as well check it out.
Comments
The Spaced commentaries are all great fun, too. Genuinly funny.
I get so frustrated when I watch Davison episodes. He's clearly brilliant, but saddled with so many terrible stories is feels like a waste.
I still haven't seen Androzani though. I'm slowly making my way through the 5th Doctor DVDs, and I'm saving that for last.