Along the same lines I wonder what folks like Zach and Matt think of filmmakers decision to not include commentary on DVD. This is a decision I grapple with myself. Instinctually, I'm against commentary. I want to guard any mystique and feeling of secrecy in filmmaking. I almost feel like filmmakers should regard the craft more like magicians. Not out of any sort of elitist tendencies but because film is a bit like magic. I wonder if the exact reason you can find so many snotty brat talkbackers on any number of websites is because of the super packaged commentary/behind-the-scenes DVD. They have all this information but almost none of them have earned it. None of them have ever picked up a camera or created anything. However, I have to admit that I've benefited from and enjoyed commentary/behind-the-scenes on many occassion.

Well, I'm glad that my thoughts helped provoke your thoughts, David, and I'm flattered you liked my blog entry.

I'm not trying to rant against video, or even worldwide video distribution, per se--this is a mixed blessing for film culture, and I don't condemn it as a practice so much as want to understand it better. What I'm more against is the pervading idea that all films can be, and should be, immediately available for our own home perusal. That just makes every film into a copy of the industrial model of the past few decades: theatrical release leading to video release, and it sits on our rental shelves from now until the next home viewing format comes along. Cinema is more than this one industrial lifeline!

As far as DVD chapters go, I guess it depends on how its makers view the construction of the DVD--whether it's a work of art on its own, or whether it's a recording of the film artwork. My gut instinct is that David Lynch is kind of full of shit about his films' artistic integrity being preserved on chapterless DVDs (note that I do like some of his films!), but I can't say anything more than this because all I have to go on vis-a-vis Lynch's decision is said gut instinct and a few stray comments from disgruntled or approving fans. But if he really wants to do it this way, I don't think it's a bad thing.

Commentary on DVDs, to me, is fine if people want to put it on, but I admit I almost never listen to it.

My biggest beef with all of this is the decline in screenings that the film will ultimately receive in the future because of this impending DVD release. Video's a poor substitute, as we all know, and seeing it theatrically can't be so easily replaced. I love the format and watch something on DVD almost daily, but it'll always be wishful thinking on my part that more people would realize the major difference between the two.

As for DVD commentaries, I've learned so much from Monte Hellman's always engaging tracks to disparage the practice.

Up until about two years ago, Zach, I rarely watched films at home; I was generally of the 'it's worth waiting for the big screen' persuasion. I finally got sick of being so behind in my attempts at cinematic self-education, and have been playing catch-up ever since - with a certain recklessness enabled by instant gratification.

"I guess it depends on how its makers view the construction of the DVD--whether it's a work of art on its own, or whether it's a recording of the film artwork"

I'd guess that Lynch and most filmmakers might be inclined towards the latter; the film remains the same (minus certain artifacts), even while the specific media changes. Those artifacts, of course, give way to the postmodern potential of DVD as a work of art unto itself (click that link about the VHS copies of The Cremaster Cycle in the post above for an interesting variation on this).

JMJ, if you read the sixth section of the second series of exchanges between Matt and myself, you'll find Matt's view on commentaries (at least, the one he held at the time).

By the way, we need to record that Deadroom commentary track when Yen gets back in town... : )

As regards 'cinematic self-education,' believe me I empathize! And I constantly whine about how broke I am, so video has been the 'way to go' for me on many occasions, not only for availability, but for my wallet. But most of what I see on video consists of films made under industrial practices--commercial works made with certain conventions (80 - 180 minutes long, a story, a theatrical release, etc.) and seeing most of these kinds of films on video, while often an aesthetic compromise, doesn't necessarily go "against" their place and conception in our public sphere. They're often made to be seen by a lot of people, for leisure, for fun, perhaps for edification, and the leisure powers video allows don't harm the "aura."

But as everyone seems to agree, Sátántangó is no ordinary film, and not one made for the mainstream exhibition practices of the commercial playing field. It's the sort of film (like, I guess, also the Cremaster cycle, which I've not seen) that I simply feel more comfortable having exist outside this equation.

Commentaries on DVDs rocks! I am all for it. Also, film is not magic. It should be de-constructed, analyzed, learned from, challenged, questioned, celebrated, and new ideas & movies can arise from the process. DVD commentaries are an excellent educational tool for filmmakers. I learned some very useful tricks by listing to, of all things, Ed Burn's commentary for his "Sidewalks of New York" (which happened while I was in the middle of a shooting period, very helpful event, that DVD being in my room when I needed the info).

- DVDCommentaryFanSujewa

Well, Magic isn't magic either but it is still a craft. Just as filmmaking is a craft. Most people commenting on this blog are filmmakers so of course commentaries are an ideal source of information. What I'm precisely interested in is the general non-filmmaking audiences need for commentary and behind-the-scenes. Of course I'm not of the belief that filmmaking is some elite secret society. But I have to wonder if DVDs are doing the audience and ourselves a disservice by telling them every little detail we can about our creative and technical process? I mean isn't that what actually making a film is for? To show them something, to let them peek inside our minds a bit. Do they really need to know what every director was thinking while filming a scene?

If audiences know how every magic trick is done by a magician the show may still be entertaining but it is no longer enthralling. I may be putting too much weight on the information revealed in commentaries but it seems we're robbing the audience of their own right to critical thought. If they wonder what a director was trying to say well let's just listen to the commentary and see. How many directors make a film while planning what they'll say in the commentary.

Shouldn't a film once it's been made and shown be our final word?

Hey JMJ,

Good ideas. I think we are talking about two schools of thought here: the imperial vs the democratic, or studio vs punk, or producer vs consumer-producer. For me, the idea in punk that the audience is also the artists translates well to the filmmaking arena if the audience knows a lot about filmmaking, and the DVD commentaries are a good tool for finding stuff out. Also, as strange as it may sounds, coming from a filmmaker, I want more competition, I want some 16 year old kid in Iowa to hear the commentary for Drugstore Cowboy and go, "f**k, I can do that",and to go & try to do it. And 10 years later, after much more trial and error, that kid could become a kick-ass filmmaker. What impresses people is not being able to decode how something is done, but being presented with something that affects them - makes them laugh, makes them have a moment of deep recognition & reflection, etc. That comes from unpredictable or predictable but w/a surprise/twist type thinking - basically mostly from the writing I'd say. Look at a movie like Being John Malckovich (sp?), any moderately experienced filmmaker should be able to figure out how each scene was shot, but knowing that does not lessen the positive response to the creativity present in the script or the excellence with which the production was executed. Deconstructing and making the craft aspect of filmmaking easily available/understandable to others is a good thing. Just because people know how to write, it does not mean they will create literary masterpieces or even just best selling romance & pulp type novels. Just because everyone knows how films are made will not lessen their power, nor will it significantly increase the number of good films that get made,I think. Filmmaking has largely been the playground of wealthy & connected
individuals (in US - Hollywood), or people with an otherworldly passion & drive (in US, Hollywood, Indiewood, real indie/DIY), or the tool of states (in Europe, etc.) during the last century. In this century I want to see it become a much more easily accessible creative & business pursuit for a much,much larger number of people. DV filmmaking, DVD commentaries all help in making the shift. The flurry of productivity in Nigeria is inspiring (they use DV, films made for around $8000, they release about 200 films a year I think, at this point). Film is too much of an excellent art form, & a powerful propaganda form too, to remain in the hands of a very lucky few in 1st world societies. The world is huge & wonderful (or can be wonderful, among other things:), the easier it is for an artist from anywhere on the planet to make a movie, possibly better the world will be due to others seeing the world through the eyes/heart of
an unfamiliar, not too familiar voice. Maybe.

Sujewa
******

I think we may be getting our ideals confused. Trust me, I'm all about DIY. I am DIY. I never went to film school. When I first picked up a video camera to make a film I didn't know what the hell I was doing. Everything I've learned is from doing it myself or watching my friends do it. When you speak of DIY and democratization of film you're talking in terms of the technical aspects of filmmaking. Autonomy from the studio way of shooting is the greatest thing that could happen to filmmaking (although you have to admit that most people making DIY films are just doing cheap rehashes of studio films.) You are also assuming that every person who watches DVDs wants to be a filmmaker which I do not think is true. I guess what is concerning me the most is the creative craft not technical side of filmmaking. It appears that no one is getting (or maybe just doesn't care) what I'm going for so I guess it's not a big concern and I'll quit going on and on about it.

In the end, I guess anything that pushes forward the art form should be celebrated.

Hey JMJ,

It may be an idea for a movie for you: how DVD commentaries affect various people. How about a story line where everything in the commentary is a lie. Could be funny & interesting. Do you have a web site for you work, if so, let me know, would like to check it out. If you make the "DVD commentary movie" & it sells a gazillion DVDs, I want a free copy:) Later.

Sujewa
*******

James - don't give up that easily!

Sujewa, JMJ is one of the directors of Deadroom.

This disregard of commentary tracks and other extra features is all rather idealistic - and its idealism of the sort I've engaged in often enough. My honest take on the matter, however, is this: commentary tracks and other special features do rob filmmaking of much of its (shall we say) wondrousness; the mystique of the craft is lost, to an extent (the usual complaint being that special effects aren't special anymore). At the same time, in most cases (and depending on the quality of these supporting materials), a sense of respect for the craft is gained. We live in an age where the availability of information outpaces curiosity; I think one has to accept an implicit awareness in the audience of the actual process, and thus extra features can, when done well, actually be a very beneficial spark to this sort of complacent understanding. By detailing the details of the craft, they can replace that already foregone mystique with a sense of appreciation (and indeed, in many cases, a newfound sense of awe) for the thought and work that goes into the production of a motion picture.

This is all in regards to your average audience members, of course. I, like most filmmakers of this generation, have benefitted too much from commentary tracks to truly wish them away - unless they're useless, which more than a few of them are, in which case nothing is gained or lost but the time of whoever sits through the whole thing).

If a filmmaker wants to protect his or her secrets, that's a beautiful thing, and I'm grateful for their lack of disclosure (for example, I never want to know where the baby in Eraserhead came from, even though I'll continue to ponder it). On the other hand, should a director feel there is some value in imparting the tricks of their individual trade, then I'll happily listen. In other words, I love the Boogie Nights DVD and its many wonderful commentary tracks, just as much as I love the Magnolia DVD and its singular focus on the film.

I can't believe I defended chapter stops and commentaries on the grounds that a lack of them hinders close readings--or rather, that this was my sole reason for doing so.

Obviously, I now defend them on the grounds that DVD is DVD, not cinema. There are, as Zach notes in his post, certain trade-offs when a film moves from one medium to the other--certain gains, certain losses. Lynch, to me, is trying to occupy some sort of no man's land between cinema and post-cinema, and as such comes off looking naive, wrongheaded. If he only wants his films to be experienced as cinematic experiences, he has to prohibit his films being made available on DVD--it's as simple as that, and I personally wouldn't have a problem with it if he did. What I have a problem with is an attempt to have the best of both worlds. Its a slap in the face to cinema and post-cinema alike.

Cinema, post-cinema - need we be so strictly categorical? That grey no man's land is an interesting place to be.

Your own response, Matt, to Zach's post is quite good, by the way. An important factor to consider is that no matter what a filmmaker's intent, interpretation - exchange - will always occur once it leaves his or her hands, so, in the end, the question of whether or not a work is seen on the big screen in one 7.5 hour sitting, as it may have been intended (which has been the point of contention for me thus far), or on a DVD over the course of a week is almost a moot one anyway.

"That grey no man's land is an interesting place to be."

It's a wishy-washy place to be--interesting, sure, but wishy-washy.

"[T]he question of whether or not a work is seen on the big screen in one 7.5 hour sitting, as it may have been intended (which has been the point of contention for me thus far), or on a DVD over the course of a week is almost a moot one anyway."

Well, maybe not a moot point so much as an interesting one. Just more to play with, I think.

"Your own response, Matt, to Zach's post is quite good, by the way."

I'm sick of being quite good. I want to be excellent or dead.

That's a joke, of course--only, not funny.

'Quite good' is the manner in which a measured intellectual type like myself says 'excellent.'

"[N]eed we be so strictly categorical?"

Actually, yes, in this instance I think we do. In denying DVD what comes somewhat naturally to it, he's limiting what that medium can be. At the same time, in trying to make DVD more cinematic (I'm talking about in terms of structure, interactivity, all that stuff I wrote about in 'A Cinema Exploded') he's removing from cinema some of its key aspects. It seems to me, again, that this middle ground, however interesting, is a slap in the face for both mediums.

"'Quite good' is the manner in which a measured intellectual type like myself says 'excellent.'"

"Measured intellectual type"--I love it!