Some say that the advent of DVD and the mainstreaming of "special features" has changed the way we watch movies. This is to some degree both accurate and unfortunate. Before DVD, when Laserdisc was the aficionados' format of choice, commentaries and other features were similarly aimed at aficionados. Moreover, because the movies that got this kind of enhanced treatment tended to be acknowledged classics more so than crash-and splash blockbusters, the additional material was often of scholarly interest presented by film historians as often as lead actors.
DVD changed that dynamic very quickly. Not only did prices start relatively low on the software, with just a $5-10 premium over the same title on VHS being commonplace, the hardware also dropped rapidly in price. From the mainstream introduction of the format in 1997 to 2000, players went from costing hundreds of dollars to under $100 for a decent quality machine. Crossing that $100 threshold seemed to break a psychological barrier with consumers as well, because within a few years VHS would be all but extinct.
Certainly, a big part of that shift was the simple fact that the sound and picture were much better than VHS (though not as good as Laserdisc, according to some), but the special features were also a key selling point. Sometimes they seemed to be only selling point, something I saw firsthand as a video buyer for Borders when movies (e.g. 1998's Lost in Space) often would be solicited to us more on the basis of the bonus features than the sub-par movies whose names were on the case.
Which brings us back to the question of whether special features are really a good thing for movie watchers. I've always had mixed feelings about special features. The behind-the-scenes programs are generally self-congratulatory puff-pieces, the deleted scenes typically reveal themselves to have been deleted for a reason and then there are the Death Star of bonus features, director (and/or writer/producer/actor) commentaries. It takes a lot of work to make a movie, even a bad one, but the fact is that for all their hard work most of these people just aren't very interesting in this context.
To the extent that commentaries are interesting, it's usually when the participants talk about how the movie as produced differed from the original intention. It's here that we find the most vexing aspect of DVD special features, rather than adding to the appreciation of the movie on the DVD, they often focus attention more on some theoretical version of the movie that never was. If it's not deleted scenes showing us things whose removal made the movie better, it's a writer telling us in an interview or (worse yet) a commentary about changes that were made to their original vision. Whether or not those changes made the movie better or worse, the bottom line is that they're still talking about a movie that doesn't exist, at the expense of enjoying the movie that actually does.
This wouldn't be so bothersome if DVD special special features weren't the focus of so much of what passes for film criticism these days. Even in major newspapers, which should know better, it's not uncommon for "reviews" to spend 90% of their text assessing the DVD features and barely 10% addressing why the film is worth talking about in the first place (as in the Washington Post's recent review of Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times).
One of the silver linings of the current shift to viewing movies online is that special features seem to be less of a focus. While I'm not sure that computer screens or Internet-enabled TVs are the best way to to present a film to a viewer, a process that puts the focus back on the work itself feels like a step in a good direction.
To be fair, the problem with the old blog title seemed to be a temporary Google-related burp. It could have happened with a title as short as "Pete's Blog". Blogger, while the most user-friendly of all the blogging platforms, is conversely the most unstable. I can't tell you how many times I've read a blog owner say something like "comments are all Bloggered up right now." But anyway, here goes my reply (and the second point that I was going to make in a follow-up comment).
ReplyDeleteWarning: I have a horse, and he's really, really high. So I'm hesitant to get off it.
It's not going to surprise you that I disagree with you intensely on this. Hell, you've worked with me long enough in this "business we call show" to know that. Special features are key to me when considering a DVD purchase, particularly as I'm something of a production geek and would like to get as much backstory on the making of the film in question as possible. Why did the film turn out the way it did? How were certain things achieved? What challenges stood in the way of production? Is the rumor I've heard about "X movie star"'s behavior on-set true? And whether questions such as these are addressed in a making-of documentary, a commentary track, or what-have-you, I am particularly happy when they are addressed. Take, for instance, the commentary tracks present on any of the (many!) released of Sam Raimi's THE EVIL DEAD (with some releases carrying over commentaries from previous DVDs). These are fascinating documents of a gang of outsiders struggling to make a movie. They're funny, candid, informative and engaging; and none of them particularly talk about how the movie in their heads is really different from the movie we are watching. Likewise, any of the "making of" documentaries produced by Blue Underground are also equally high quality, and are presented creatively and intelligently.
ReplyDeleteNow, major studios are generally the worst at handling DVD supplements, despite having the disposable income to actually do them well. They generally use EPKs or similar puffery as behind-the-scenes material, and anything else that's offered (sometimes as little as a trailer, or worse, trailers for other films available from the selfsame studio) is generally given short shrift due to the vast amount of releases they're shoveling down the mainline. Warner Brothers is a nice exception, with their releases of classic films generally accompanied by supplements that enhance the product with informative and intelligent material. However, it's generally the independent companies that produce the best supplements, because they're choosing titles that they are apparently passionate about, and can take the time and effort to do them right. Criterion, for example. Or Synapse, Grindhouse Releasing, Mondo Macabro, or the aforementioned Blue Underground. Some might argue that -- Criterion aside -- the companies listed above are releasing titles that don't belong on the marketplace alongside more "prestigious" titles. But niche titles bring along with them fanatic viewers, and those viewers tend to want as much informative content on the films they love as possible. Special features might not mean so much to the passive movie viewer: someone who might watch a movie once or twice and then never revisit it. But they're free to ignore the special features. When they're not present, it's the passionate fans and assorted enthusiasts who feel shafted, and will convey the impression that said company does not care about the films they are presenting. (Especially if that lack of supplements is coupled with sub-par transfers and other assorted A/V quality control issues).
And wouldn't you know it, Google gave me the same error again, and yet my post showed up again. DAMN YOU, BLOGGER!!!!
ReplyDeleteNow, as to your second point, I think you're conflating two different issues: film criticism vs. product review. When it comes to a review of a DVD product, I am looking primarily for discussion of the film's presentation. How does it look and sound, and in what context is it presented (ie, how are the bonus features, and how is the film treated as a whole)? I already know that Modern Times is a great film. I understand it's placement in Chaplin's filmography and the context of the times in which it was released. I know what it's about. But if I didn't, there are acres of actual film criticism available for me to draw from. For instance, all of Roger Ebert's written criticism for the Sun-Times is available online. So when I'm reading a review of something that packages that film, I mostly need a review of what that package is like and how it enhances or detracts from what I already know is a great film. It's like reading a review of The Annotated Sherlock Holmes. I don't need to know that Doyle's stories are great. There are other, cheaper, volumes of the stories available for purchase if I don't have them already. I need to know about the annotations and how the stories are presented on the page (if "A Study in Scarlet" is missing its final paragraph, I'd want to know that).
ReplyDelete