The Best Disc Commentary? (1 Viewer)

[Kevin Antonio (Kev)]

But the main thing I truly enjoy is the fact he usually talks about the scene at hand and how it is setup. Too many commentaries talk around scenes and moments only to reflect on the whole experience. Michael mann to me always does great commentaries.

 

[Charles 22]

He mentions a handful of other films but he uses sequences in them as a example mainly for lenses and camera setups. Sturges cut his teeth in the film editing rooms so he truly knew how to put a picture together. Sturges also is a very matter of fact guy. He doesn't get caught up on the fluff. I think you will enjoy it. Some of it is on YouTube

Hmmm.

 

[Charles 22]

But the main thing I truly enjoy is the fact he usually talks about the scene at hand and how it is setup. Too many commentaries talk around scenes and moments only to reflect on the whole experience. Michael mann to me always does great commentaries.

For me, I think I want them to stay pertinent to the work at hand, and I tire of people getting into a commentary of their career (with some exceptions). I'm not too sure I've ever heard anybody get into the photography very much. What does Michael Mann have to do with, the same film you mentioned Sturges on?

 

[Kevin Antonio (Kev)]

For me, I think I want them to stay pertinent to the work at hand, and I tire of people getting into a commentary of their career (with some exceptions). I'm not too sure I've ever heard anybody get into the photography very much. What does Michael Mann have to do with, the same film you mentioned Sturges on?

Somehow my sentence to bring mann's name up, wasn't in the my finished statement. Mann has bo connection to Sturges commentary. He is another recommendation for a commentary. He too always sticks with the film at hand and it's whole entire history.

 

[Charles 22]

Somehow my sentence to bring mann's name up, wasn't in the my finished statement. Mann has bo connection to Sturges commentary. He is another recommendation for a commentary. He too always sticks with the film at hand and it's whole entire history.

Thanks for the clarification. This forum can be pretty screwy at times, and I recall it took me quite a while to figure it out consistently.

 

[Charles 22]

Somehow my sentence to bring mann's name up, wasn't in the my finished statement. Mann has bo connection to Sturges commentary. He is another recommendation for a commentary. He too always sticks with the film at hand and it's whole entire history.

I just tried out Sturges's youtube commentary, and his voice alone is pretty gripping. I like what he said about what influenced him because I've gone a step perhaps further in my philosophical meanderings.

Basically, it's like this. The true word to somebody isn't wasted as it often appears. There are those like myself, which will fight it in some way, bring a bunch of other angles to counter it, but later, we will consider it deeper within ourself, to see how it fits in, or simply cannot; basically, it's an effort to grow. So what ends up happening, the more profound the better perhaps, is that despite somebody wholly rejecting what you're bringing, it will sink in. They may evaluate it when you're not around, but let's say they don't, and they just won't for a long time (decades) won't ever come to grips with it. What happens is their general disposition is in the way of them accepting it entirely, or just what pieces fall well into their system (to adapt).

One day, should they change their general disposition, those thoughts will come to them possibly, but when it does, they won't have the faintest idea where it came from, sort of what Sturges said, and they'll more heartily listen to it, because they will think the idea all their own, unless, of course, they're deep enough at the time to realize a great deal of your knowledge has always been there from somebody else, and just because it went underground so to speak, doesn't mean it ever really went away, if only you become open at some point.

 

[Kevin Antonio (Kev)]

I just tried out Sturges's youtube commentary, and his voice alone is pretty gripping. I like what he said about what influenced him because I've gone a step perhaps further in my philosophical meanderings.

Basically, it's like this. The true word to somebody isn't wasted as it often appears. There are those like myself, which will fight it in some way, bring a bunch of other angles to counter it, but later, we will consider it deeper within ourself, to see how it fits in, or simply cannot; basically, it's an effort to grow. So what ends up happening, the more profound the better perhaps, is that despite somebody wholly rejecting what you're bringing, it will sink in. They may evaluate it when you're not around, but let's say they don't, and they just won't for a long time (decades) won't ever come to grips with it. What happens is their general disposition is in the way of them accepting it entirely, or just what pieces fall well into their system (to adapt).

One day, should they change their general disposition, those thoughts will come to them possibly, but when it does, they won't have the faintest idea where it came from, sort of what Sturges said, and they'll more heartily listen to it, because they will think the idea all their own, unless, of course, they're deep enough at the time to realize a great deal of your knowledge has always been there from somebody else, and just because it went underground so to speak, doesn't mean it ever really went away, if only you become open at some point.

The last paragraph you stated I've read in books about filmmaking. Some directors or actors consider that like planting a seed and even if the collaborator isn't liking the idea at the time, it may stay in their subconscious and when doing another take ( later on in production) they may say, " hey let's try it like this" and while they think it was there own idea it was planted all along through conversation.

As for sturges I knew you would like it. The commentary wasn't on the bluray by Warners but if I ever come across it I will share it. But it's on the laserdisc.

 

[Charles 22]

Here's the Sturges bits: and Very nice, the guy could talk forever.

 

[Charles 22]

The last paragraph you stated I've read in books about filmmaking. Some directors or actors consider that like planting a seed and even if the collaborator isn't liking the idea at the time, it may stay in their subconscious and when doing another take ( later on in production) they may say, " hey let's try it like this" and while they think it was there own idea it was planted all along through conversation.

As for sturges I knew you would like it. The commentary wasn't on the bluray by Warners but if I ever come across it I will share it. But it's on the laserdisc.

That notion of buried ideas, rather reminds me, for some reason, of that psychological trick played with the brier rabbit, sort of the reverse psychology, that you know somebody is twisted, and they're like a lion seeking whom to devour, so you give them some meat, and act like you're begging not to have something done to you, which you really want. It's the emotion of the begging, that prod the enemy on, to really believe that's what you so desperately don't want. It was helpful, of course, that the briers were a very bad place for all sorts of living beings, except the rabbit.

 

[Charles 22]

This week I acquired the blu-ray set for Dr. Who with the 5th doctor. I mentioned earlier that Who commentary is very good. Today I got started on the commentary, after seeing the four episodes to "Four to Doomsday" and that title is actually an unintended commentary, on the commentary, because they brought in all four actors, and a director I think it was. At times, it was utter chaos, as doomsday would suggest, but it's VERY lively, and I love it. Just tons of insight, which is a hallmark of Who.

If I hadn't made it clear before, I HATE Dr Who for the most part, and if the companions were any less lovely, I would have no interest at all, but that's just the show proper. The real treat is the blasted commentary, and I just can't get enough they are so damn good. Odd to think of it, isn't it, that a show you mostly hate, shines so much in the commentary?

While I also hated Land of the Lost, but it seemed to have a more compelling sci-fi basis to me, therefore more interest, the commentary, though mostly a different style from Who, was the absolute best. I'm starting to wonder if you want to really hear superb commentary, buy the most awful stuff you can get your hands on, that features commentary, and the commentary will take you away. Seriously, I might give Who maybe a 3 on the 1-10 scale, but the commentary a 9 or higher.

One little highlight on today's two-episode commentary, was Janet Fielding who plays Tegan, said she always saw her character as "Lucy in space". Then she clarified by saying she saw her character as being the Lucy Van Pelt of Charlie Brown cartoons, thrown into space, I suppose because she was so gripey a character. I love Fielding I can tell you. I'm not sure where I would rank her in classic Who assistants, but I'd put her in the top three easy. One of her draws for me, is she's a very active assistant, because with a lot of companions, they almost go dead silent, and while being gripey isn't an asset for a lot of people, at least it's better than having nothing to say but "Look, doctor, what is that?" In commentary, I would say she carried the room, apart from Peter Davison, whom I guess they had to give the main nod seeing as how, he was Who. She definitely likes to talk.