As others have stated, the quality of DVD commentaries varies. Sometimes
they do seem to be "just for fun" - and is there anything wrong with this?
Some movies are just for fun.
I find conversational commentaries with newer directors to be the most
interesting. One of the most enjoyable commentaries I've heard is Bill
Paxton's track on Frailty. From a student filmmaker standpoint, he was great
to listen to because this was his first feature length film, and he talks a
lot about his sources and influences. It was the closest I'd ever get to
being able to sit down with him and talk about his experiences in making the
film, working with crew, achieving certain shots, etc. I also came away with
a very positive impression of Paxton as a person.
That's another thing: the commentaries can really humanize a filmmaker. Eric
Bross's "Ten Benny" is one of the worst dramas I've ever seen (Adrien Brody
being the only good thing about it). Later, I watched "Restaurant," not
realizing Bross had directed it, too. I listened to the commentary track.
When I realized it was Bross, I felt a bit guilty for ranting against "Ten
Benny" months before. Here was a real man, learning, and striving to improve
his work. I still think Ten Benny is an awful film, but I have a lot more
sympathy for Bross.
As for The Thin Red Line ... a commentary would be much appreciated by me.
At worst, Malick could just crush everyone by saying repeatedly, "Oh, I
don't know why that's there ... I thought it looked nice." Ideally, he'd do
a stream of conciousness running commentary in which he'd share his
perceptions of Emerson, From Here To Eternity, war poetry, the redness of
Dash Mihok's hair, Greek civilization, the actors who didn't make the final
cut, his use of mirror symbolism, and so on. But I'm not holding my breath.
-hafidha
|