Ben-Hur - 4DVD Edition.

[Eric W.]

Another gigantic waste in the 2005 documentary was allowing George Lucas to talk about the "inspiration" of Ben-Hur on him for Episode #1's pod-race complete with clips. I think it's a disgrace to even remotely compare the two, and from my standpoint that scene only demonstrated how Lucas has largely been bereft of imaginative ideas of his own for quite some time.

Amen!

[AndyDursin]

Another gigantic waste in the 2005 documentary was allowing George Lucas to talk about the "inspiration" of Ben-Hur on him for Episode #1's pod-race complete with clips. I think it's a disgrace to even remotely compare the two, and from my standpoint that scene only demonstrated how Lucas has largely been bereft of imaginative ideas of his own for quite some time.

Amen!

And to think this was supposed to be the "Big DVD of 2005"...I hope KING KONG doesn't suffer from similar issues

[Eric Paddon]

Ben Hur demonstrates what supplements should *not* be about.

#1-Commentary tracks should first and foremost be about the production and history of the movie, and should *not* be the occasion for highly questionable social commentary, especially when there's a lot of dead air time on the former points of production history.

#2-Documentary features should be in the same vein, and more importantly should not be overly devoted to the film's "influence" on other movies, especially not of the present age.

We'll be in trouble if "King Kong" spends an inordinate amount of time about what Kong is supposed to symbolize, blah-blah-blah in its supplements.

[AndyDursin]

Ben Hur demonstrates what supplements should *not* be about.

#1-Commentary tracks should first and foremost be about the production and history of the movie, and should *not* be the occasion for highly questionable social commentary, especially when there's a lot of dead air time on the former points of production history.

#2-Documentary features should be in the same vein, and more importantly should not be overly devoted to the film's "influence" on other movies, especially not of the present age.

We'll be in trouble if "King Kong" spends an inordinate amount of time about what Kong is supposed to symbolize, blah-blah-blah in its supplements.

Couldn't agree with you more. I started reviewing laserdiscs when I was in high school and recall the first commentary I had a real problem with: I believe it was Criterion's PEEPING TOM, which (as memory serves) had a "film professor" talk endlessly about the meaning of each shot and scene. Most of it felt like pure and simple "academic" poppycock -- the kind that make for the worst commentary tracks.

[Eric Paddon]

Marian Keane, I think it was, on the Criterion commentary for "Spellbound" was the biggest commentary snoozer for me since all she did was look for sexual symbols in every shot it seemed like.

OTOH, there are some instances where a production person like a director should not be allowed to go solo, especially if he has a faulty memory. I can remember when George Sidney did a commentary in his advancing years for the 1951 "Show Boat" and he was blurting out all kinds of nonsense about seeing trucks in the background that weren't trucks. If an expert historian on the production is there to help refresh the production person at various points that usually makes for a great commentary.

[AndyDursin]

Marian Keane, I think it was, on the Criterion commentary for "Spellbound" was the biggest commentary snoozer for me since all she did was look for sexual symbols in every shot it seemed like.

OTOH, there are some instances where a production person like a director should not be allowed to go solo, especially if he has a faulty memory. I can remember when George Sidney did a commentary in his advancing years for the 1951 "Show Boat" and he was blurting out all kinds of nonsense about seeing trucks in the background that weren't trucks. If an expert historian on the production is there to help refresh the production person at various points that usually makes for a great commentary.

And another no-no for me are commentaries recorded IMMEDIATELY after a film's release. The typical practice now is to record them even before the movie is released -- but in both cases you tend to get a very non-critical track by a cast or director who ends up spending the commentary thanking his cast and crew profusely for all the work they did. It ends up being tedious, self-congratulatory and not very informative -- which is sadly what most DVD commentaries have become.

Even back in the laserdisc days it was like that. Criterion's BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA had one of the dullest commentaries by Coppola you'll ever hear -- it was dry and really tired sounding.

Often times the best commentaries are recorded after a certain period of time, so that the filmmaker/performer has some objectivity that they can bring to it....though I'm in agreement with you, Eric, that advancing age can be a problem. A couple of Anchor Bay-Hammer DVDs had really dry commentaries with now-elderly directors who clearly had trouble remembering what went on at the time.

[mkaroly]

[quote="AndyDursin
Couldn't agree with you more. I started reviewing laserdiscs when I was in high school and recall the first commentary I had a real problem with: I believe it was Criterion's PEEPING TOM, which (as memory serves) had a "film professor" talk endlessly about the meaning of each shot and scene.[/quote]

Was it Laura Mulvey???? She was on the DVD commentary I think- anyway, I like a mix of academia and "behind-the-scenes" stuff, like troubles on the set, biographical details, etc. I think all-in-all the Fox Studio Classics series in general do a good job with that. I'm usually happy with Criterion stuff- Donald Ritchie et al on the Criterion Japanese film DVDs is usually pretty good. As far as the academic stuff- I guess you just have to like sitting though it. To me it's like sitting in a classroom back in college listening to a professor- there's a gem of a point here and there with a lot of filler in between.