criterionforum.org

I think Buñuel would have despised the whole notion of a DVD commentary.

MichaelB wrote:Actually, I'd say two of those would count as career-defining masterpieces - definitely Los Olvidados (and how!), and arguably Nazarin too.

Well then I'm even more excited! The earlier two-disc set was okay but not exhilarating. Perhaps I can finally get rid of my import Olivados...

MichaelB wrote:I think Buñuel would have despised the whole notion of a DVD commentary.

I agree wholeheartedly. Bunuel hated questions about the symbolism of his films, the deeper meaning in this shot or that line, etc. The Mexican period contains the bulk of what Bunuel termed his "bread-and-butter" films, i.e., films without any deep significance in which he was able to smuggle a surrealist touch or two. I know there's a doc somewhere out there called "A Mexican Bunuel," which features interviews with some of the actors who worked with him, namely Katy Jurado (El Bruto) and perhaps Roberto Cobo (Los Olvidados). I was just thinking it would have been something to have gotten a commentary ten or twelve years ago from Paco Rabal on Nazarin. Almodovar could have done it. Or perhaps the two critics who collected an incredible amount of taped conversations with Bunuel, Tomas Perez Turrent and Jose de la Colina could have their interviews spliced into a commentary track. Carlos Fuentes is another possibility. And no collection of Bunuel's Mexican work would be complete without a feature on Gabriel Figueroa, truly one of the unsung cinematographers of world cinema.

According to the listings at Navarre, they've been assigned UPCs and the MSRP is ... get ready ... $9.98. For a double feature.

Los Olvidados / El Río y la muerte

La Ilusión viaja en tranvía / Nazarín

El Gran Calavera / La Hija del engaño

Release date for all three is 4/29/2008.

At $9.98 MSRP, I would expect transfers approaching 1950's kinescope quality. I think these must be cheap throwaways for the Latin market (witness the Spanish titles). But that begs the question of distribution rights. If Lionsgate indeed owns the US rights to the revered Los Olivdados and Nazarín, why not command a higher price for the cinephile market?

Puzzling.

Wait a minute. All of the recent Lionsgate-Studio Canal sets have been great, with acceptable transfers and bargain prices. No reason to think these won't be any different, yet.

jesus the mexican boi wrote:

MichaelB wrote:I think Buñuel would have despised the whole notion of a DVD commentary.

I agree wholeheartedly. Bunuel hated questions about the symbolism of his films, the deeper meaning in this shot or that line, etc.

Why does what he thought even matter as to whether or not there's a commentary track? It's not like he ever said, "Man, I hope no one ever records himself or herself while watching my movie and distributes it so people can hear about some ambiguous symbolism I've injected into my film."

chaddoli wrote:Wait a minute. All of the recent Lionsgate-Studio Canal sets have been great, with acceptable transfers and bargain prices. No reason to think these won't be any different, yet.

These 6 Bunuel films aren't Studio Canal. The SC prints were what made the releases so good. These 6 are coming from Televisa so they are up in the air. Judging from the recent Cinemateca Bunuels, I doubt these would be SC or Criterion quality.

I bet Bunuel hated kittens but I still think they're cute

kaujot wrote:Why does what he thought even matter as to whether or not there's a commentary track? It's not like he ever said, "Man, I hope no one ever records himself or herself while watching my movie and distributes it so people can hear about some ambiguous symbolism I've injected into my film."

In all seriousness, Buñuel's films don't need commentaries, and the manifest inadequacies of the ones that have been recorded so far (Belle de Jour has inspired two terrible commentaries, which must be a record) tend to prove my point.

I mean, what can you usefully say? Either you end up describing what's perfectly obvious on screen, or you over-analyse it - which goes completely against the grain of Buñuel's whole approach to cinema.

"If I don't like it, no one else should."
Here's an idea: if you don't want to listen to a commentary track, then don't. But don't attempt to belittle a viewer who's a little more open minded or approaches film from a different angle than you from learning about the film via commentary track.

I think people do have a tendency to fetishise commentaries, to the extent that if a DVD doesn't have one, they think it's somehow lacking. Never mind the fact that the film may not suit one at all. (A point made by the Quay Brothers when they only agreed to record commentaries on less than half the films on their collection)

Personally, I much prefer Masters of Cinema's preference for really meaty books and Second Run's video and booklet essays - which generally cover everything that needs covering, without having to come up with endless padding to fill the film's entire running time.

davidhare wrote:What I am saying Domino is just watch the movie. On its own. BY all means play the track later or play it again with the image as wallpaper for memory aid or whatever.

But NEVER sit down to watch a movie with a commentary track in place of the soundtrack.

I don't want to misinterpret you, are you saying that people shouldn't watch a film for the first time with the commentary track on? Because while I agree with you, I don't know of anyone who does this and if you can point one out I will join you in mocking them.

(My last post was supposed to be playful, not agressive)
I don't think commentaries have to be there, though for some films I want to hear one because I have such an existing love for the film that I'm eager to possibly hear a new take or approach-- this coupled with how good the Contempt track was is a reason I was vocally disappointed in the Pierrot le fou announcement. Commentaries are also great when you suddenly become obsessed with a film and feel the need to absorb every minutiae related to it. I agree that the film comes first, I never meant to imply otherwise. I just don't see anything wrong with giving others the option. I mean, if anyone is foolhardy enough to want to listen to Drew Casper or Richard Shickel, let 'em learn the hard way.

MichaelB wrote:

kaujot wrote:Why does what he thought even matter as to whether or not there's a commentary track? It's not like he ever said, "Man, I hope no one ever records himself or herself while watching my movie and distributes it so people can hear about some ambiguous symbolism I've injected into my film."

In all seriousness, Buñuel's films don't need commentaries, and the manifest inadequacies of the ones that have been recorded so far (Belle de Jour has inspired two terrible commentaries, which must be a record) tend to prove my point.

I mean, what can you usefully say? Either you end up describing what's perfectly obvious on screen, or you over-analyse it - which goes completely against the grain of Buñuel's whole approach to cinema.

I'd have to agree. But the US commentary on Belle has probably my favorite commentary moment: [woman's droll nasal Texan twang] "the fact that she's wearing a bra and nothing else would indicate that she's been sodomised."

davidhare, why do commentaries bug you so much though?--this question is in general so perhaps not appropriate to this thread, sorry. Is it the thought that someone would watch a film for the first time WHILE the commentary is playing? Yeah, that's just plain stupid insofar as you are allowing your viewing to be dictated. Do you watch interviews with directors or film historians? A commentary is pretty much that...but most likely longer and with the film playing in the back ground as a point of reference. Sometimes it's much preferable--hate to be smarmy, but watching Freda Freiberg being interviewed [edit: on the BFI Naruse DVDS]was actually an uncomfortable experience; better to have some clips playing. In all honesty I prefer meaty booklets but those are so few and far between. Even here, is it really fair to castigate someone for listening to Bob Historian waxing on about Antonioni while the film is playing but celebrating someone for reading the same content in a booklet? That is, outside the general agenda of "Read a Good Book Today!"?

skuhn8 wrote:"the fact that she's wearing a bra and nothing else would indicate that she's been sodomised."

For some reason, the image of Adam West as Batman saying "Precisely Robin - the only possible explanation!" has just popped into my head.

So I thought I'd share it with you.

I've come to the point where-- I'm not kidding-- I'd rather go get laundry done than put on a commentary, even for a classic. I simply have no stomach for "analytic commentary" where some schmuck ass with an agent tries to put himself on a par with a director and "explain" a films "meaning" to me. A film whose meaning I cannot grasp on my own is a film that meant nothing to me, and nothing could be more of a bad acid trip than listening to a wank drone on in high tones about a film that means nothing to me.

My opinion has shifted for one specific reason: I used to welcome commentaries for those films I was fanatical for, and screw the rest. But those (those rare idiotic commentaries for silents-- barring rarest of rare gems like the Kozarski Stroeheims and the Kalat Langs) were the commentaries that disappointed me most.

I'd have to agree that if you have anything more than a cursory knowledge of cinema the mass majority of commentaries are going to be a waste of time. A quick glance at an IMDB entry will outshine even the best Schickel commentary. But it is nice when someone on the forum highlights a good commentary track--I usually try to avoid them now unless I hear a recommendation or I know that the commentator 'gives good comtrack'. Sometimes on a particular scene I'm just curious to hear what someone else has to say about it; god knows my friends aren't going to chime in (noone watches films with me anymore ).

I'd be curious to know if a commentary track has ever been rejected for inadequacy. I suspect not considering how much utter useless crap there is out there on such great films.

Actually, I can think of some DVDs that are worth watching with the commentary on first time round - the BFI's Mitchell & Kenyon compilations.

But those are a special case, where you arguably need quite a bit of external context to make sense of them (given that much of the footage consists purely of street scenes, workers leaving factories, football matches, etc.)

skuhn8 wrote:I'd be curious to know if a commentary track has ever been rejected for inadequacy. I suspect not considering how much utter useless crap there is out there on such great films.

I dunno, didn't Jim Jarmusch reject his own commentary for the Criterion Laserdisc of Stranger Than Paradise? But that's the only instance I can think of and I may be remembering wrong.

I like the video essays where the critic speaks over relevant sections of the film. The most brilliant by far is Tag Gallagher's on the R2 Letter From an Unknown Woman.

GringoTex wrote:I like the video essays where the critic speaks over relevant sections of the film. The most brilliant by far is Tag Gallagher's on the R2 Letter From an Unknown Woman.

Seconded -- on average, far better than either commentaries or talking heads interviews/ speeches

I should be outraged that some cheeky fecker has uploaded it to YouTube (not least because the quality is dire), but I'm very proud of this Quay Brothers interview, especially given the bargain-basement budget and schedule.

It took a grand total of a day and a half to make - half a day to shoot the video, and a day in an edit suite with their back catalogue to hand to cut in appropriate illustrations.

My personal favourite bit starts at 3:45 on the clip I've linked to - when we got that right in the edit, there was a fair amount of whooping and air-punching. In fact, you'd swear that they were specifically commenting over that section of the film, though they were as surprised as anyone when they saw the final result!

Michael Kerpan wrote:

GringoTex wrote:I like the video essays where the critic speaks over relevant sections of the film. The most brilliant by far is Tag Gallagher's on the R2 Letter From an Unknown Woman.

Seconded -- on average, far better than either commentaries or talking heads interviews/ speeches

It does seem to be the best solution; let's just hope that more releases start including them. It would be nice if they moved out of mostly being included on boutique releases like Criterions, but I'm not sure that'll ever happen; I think that, if they're even on their radar at all, most mainstream studios seem to view them as too much work.

Cronenfly wrote: I think that, if they're even on their radar at all, most mainstream studios seem to view them as too much work.

They shouldn't be, provided they're planned intelligently.

I'm taking a very keen interest in this particular topic, since I've just been asked to do a 10-15 minute piece to accompany a forthcoming release.

While most of it will be in the form of a to-camera introduction, I'm hoping I'll be able to throw in some analysis of apposite extracts - even if I end up editing the thing myself in Final Cut Pro to keep the budget down to an absolute minimum.

GringoTex wrote:I like the video essays where the critic speaks over relevant sections of the film.

Me too - for example, Isabelle Huppert did an excellent scene-specific commentary on the R2 La Pianiste.

I didn't know there were so many others on the forum who are not indiffierent to commentaries but actually find them a negative. Aside from taking something away from the experience of a film by separating the images from the dialog and soundtrack (silent films aside), I also think they waste a lot of studio funds that are often very scarce for the releases I like.