Commentary Tracks - The Good, The Bad & The Unlistenable

[AndyDursin]

NOTE - Thought this discussion warranted its own thread, so I'm going to move posts over from the Last Movie... talk.

I even started a topic for Alan Spencer's great NUDE BOMB commentary last year --
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6784

Sounds like the other commentary is, well, like too many of these "historian commentaries". I didn't bother listening to it, and I don't know where they dig some of these guys up, but there's one "filmmaker/historian" in particular who keeps getting work on a certain label's releases, and he literally does nothing but read IMDB Credits and the IMDB Trivia page for that movie outloud while it's going on.

"This actor was in ____ before this movie and made __ movies afterwards including ____, ____, ____ and ____. He stopped working in ____ and died in ____." And "this scene was shot in ____ and they've said this location was burned down in ______." He also never looks at any other sources, it's obvious he's just reading IMDB off his phone, so if there's something factually incorrect there, he just reads it verbatim.

[Johnmgm]

If he is the historian who did the commentary for Murder by Death---don't waste your time.

[Eric Paddon]

Now there was a snooze-fest of a commentary!

It's amazing how so many of them tend to be more miss than hit.

[Monterey Jack]

Sounds like the other commentary is, well, like too many of these "historian commentaries". I didn't bother listening to it, and I don't know where they dig some of these guys up, but there's one "filmmaker/historian" in particular who keeps getting work on a certain label's releases, and he literally does nothing but read IMDB Credits and the IMDB Trivia page for that movie outloud while it's going on.

I have little patience for most "historian" commentaries from people who had nothing to do with the making of a particular film. Like Andy says, it's usually just a rundown of a film's Wiki or IMDB trivia page, delivered in a dry, stuffy monotone. Hell, even a lot of commentaries from people who were involved in a movie often come up wanting, because it's years if not decades later, and the directors, producers or actors in question barely remember anything of worth, unless there's a "moderator" present to poke them with a sharp stick occasionally. Gimme an unpretentious commentary like The Goonies or The 40 Year Old Virgin, where there's not much in terms of deep-dish trivia or whatever, just a lot of laughs from the cast and crew clearly having a lark over the movie.

[Eric Paddon]

I like to hear a historian talk if it's a case of the guy having done some actual homework and trying to impart beneath the surface info. The Universal monster film commentaries required the participants to study the record of what had been said and break things down. But if the person isn't going to do some homework on some people that's when we're looking at trouble. At the same time, I have no use for commentaries that consist of participants reacting to what they're seeing in silence and chuckling and saying nothing or little. It tends to be better when its a participant being interviewed by a historian who remembers things better to guide the participant along.

And then there are the pretentious commentators. Julie Kirgo falls in that category (echoing why her liner notes are the most unreadable pieces of pap I've ever had to endure).

[mkaroly]

Julie Kirgo is awful...pretentious is a good word. Her writing style reflects that well.

[Paul MacLean]

My favorite is John Boorman's commentary for Excalibur where, in several instances, he's about to expound on an interesting topic or anecdote, then gets distracted by something on screen, and changes the subject with a throwaway comment on what we're looking at.

"Alex Thomson was the cinematographer for this film, and he...oh, there's that actor from Star Trek again."

[AndyDursin]

Thought this discussion warranted its own thread, so I'm going to move posts over from the Last Movie... talk.

Just to be clear -- I don't mean to trash "historians" who actually ARE historians. Tim Lucas of Video Watchdog always provides an insightful commentary, even if it's mostly recited from his notes, because of the extensive research and analysis he does. Tom Weaver does a fine job on Universal films of the '40s and '50s, and the Steve Haberman/Constantine Nasr duo are always worth a listen on various Shout horror titles.

There are "historians" who are doing some commentaries on various other titles who, frankly, aren't very capable. I suppose the commentaries are a needed "added value" to these titles, but when all they are doing is reading off IMDB, sometimes verbatim, why bother? I'd rather hear them give some analysis about the film, whether I agree or disagree with it, than something I could easily do on my own when a film is happening.

[Eric Paddon]

Lucas did an outstanding commentary track on "One Million Years BC" that treated the film with respect instead of giving it the snarky "this is so camp" type commentary you might have expected.

[Johnmgm]

Tim Lucas and (especially) Tom Weaver do an outstanding job on commentary tracks, however, my favorite might be Gregory W. Mank. Full disclosure: Lucas and Weaver are friends.

[AndyDursin]

I'll have to think about this for a bit, but two really good commentaries I enjoy listening to are:

FIRST BLOOD - David Morrell details the long history of his book's journey to the screen and the movie's production. I think this was recorded in the late '90s (I'd have to go back and look), and it's held up as one of the best commentaries. Gives Goldsmith a lot of credit.

PINK PANTHER FILM COLLECTION - William Patrick Maynard's commentaries on REVENGE and TRAIL are really good, researched and useful, especially TRAIL where he details where all the outtake footage was sourced from.

[Eric Paddon]

The best LD commentary I can recall that was never fully duplicated on DVD or Blu-Ray was John Fricke's for "Wizard Of Oz". Only a condensed version appeared on DVD (mixed in with other stuff).

The infamous Criterion Bond LD commentaries were valuable for the recollections of Terence Young, Richard Maibaum, Peter Hunt etc. but the narrations by Bruce Eder and Steven Jay Rubin left something to be desired. Both were guilty of pushing the falsehood that John Barry not only composed the Bond Theme originally but Eder tried to push the idea that Barry did the entire Dr. No underscore!

[Paul MacLean]

The infamous Criterion Bond LD commentaries were valuable for the recollections of Terence Young, Richard Maibaum, Peter Hunt etc. but the narrations by Bruce Eder and Steven Jay Rubin left something to be desired. Both were guilty of pushing the falsehood that John Barry not only composed the Bond Theme originally but Eder tried to push the idea that Barry did the entire Dr. No underscore!

Monty Norman successfully sued more than once when people publicly credited the Bond theme to John Barry -- so I must chose my words carefully here.

Lets just say that John Barry brought a lot to what we know of as the Bond theme.

I think this pretty-well sums-up the "division of labor"...



As far as the actual dramatic score for Dr. No, John Barry had nothing to do with it. However, given that Norman is a tunesmith who can't read music, and barely even plays the piano, it's highly likely Burt Rhodes played a significant role in creating the music.

[Eric Paddon]

Certainly no one would dispute that Barry took a largely unimpressive piece of Norman's thematic material and turned it into something special. Claiming it was 100% from scratch his and that only a contractual loophole was what got Norman any kind of credit was what Eder claimed on the Dr. No commentary and that was crossing a line into something that wasn't true. Giving Barry 95% of the credit for making it special would have sufficed but trying to make it all 100% was getting too greedy.

[Eric Paddon]

The Steven Jay Rubin-Irvin Kershner commentary on NSNA is largely a snoozefest. We mostly get Kershner describing the action on-screen and Rubin, in keeping with how much of a shill he was for the whole film during its entire development history never asks him a single probing question of importance other than one about the music score and Kershner does admit that by the time they realized it wasn't right it was too late to hire a new composer or do any changes because they had to meet a deadlien.