Peter Bogdanovich MVC? (Most Vapid Commentary)

[HerrSchreck]

I'm glad I found this page. I can't even bear to look at Bogdonavich's face anymore. It hangs so long on his skull it looks like it's going to shlup right off his jaw & flump into his lap like a wet washcloth or something.

With those damn horn-rims... What is he, a professional legend-groupie?

[pzman84]

What is he, a professional legend-groupie?

Gotta pay the bills somehow

[Polybius]

In re Spike: I don't know if he still does it, but he used to always put out trade paperback companion books to his earlier films. I have the one for Mo' Better Blues and it affords a lot of behind the scenes insight that would normally be part of a good commentary and stuff like storyboards that would show up on a good SE.

[Jeff]

There's a very perceptive article at The Onion's A.V. Club about the various annoying archetypes present on DVD commentaries. The authors take smart swipes at both Bogdanovich and Marian Keane.

[skuhn8]

There's a very perceptive article at The Onion's A.V. Club about the various annoying archetypes present on DVD commentaries. The authors take smart swipes at both Bogdanovich and Marian Keane.

Great find. They certainly cover the bases there, but leaves me curious to know what they consider a good commentary. Huh. Robert Wise. His commentary on Set-Up was a pretty sad affair. Between him and Michael Powell I imagine that Martin Scorcese has quite a hand transporting the old and in infirm...but is still no better at getting them to give up the goods on commentaries.

[tryavna]

Great find. They certainly cover the bases there, but leaves me curious to know what they consider a good commentary. Huh. Robert Wise. His commentary on Set-Up was a pretty sad affair. Between him and Michael Powell I imagine that Martin Scorcese has quite a hand transporting the old and in infirm...but is still no better at getting them to give up the goods on commentaries.

Were Scorsese and Wise recorded simultaneously? For some reason, I had the impression that they weren't in the same room, so maybe I need to go back and revisit that commentary. Or not. Either way, I remember it being a bit of a let-down. (That being said, I actually though Wise's commentary for Day the Earth Stood Still was fairly decent. The main drawback was that the long documentary covered most of the same anecdotes and facts, so there was definitely too much overlap.)

But I agree with you, Skuhn. What would they consider a good commentary? And aren't there times that an academic commentary is appropriate, especially when it's a major film and all the people involved are dead?

Nevertheless, the line about John Carpenter's cigarette smoking was hilarious.

[skuhn8]

Great find. They certainly cover the bases there, but leaves me curious to know what they consider a good commentary. Huh. Robert Wise. His commentary on Set-Up was a pretty sad affair. Between him and Michael Powell I imagine that Martin Scorcese has quite a hand transporting the old and in infirm...but is still no better at getting them to give up the goods on commentaries.

Were Scorsese and Wise recorded simultaneously? For some reason, I had the impression that they weren't in the same room, so maybe I need to go back and revisit that commentary. Or not. Either way, I remember it being a bit of a let-down. (That being said, I actually though Wise's commentary for Day the Earth Stood Still was fairly decent. The main drawback was that the long documentary covered most of the same anecdotes and facts, so there was definitely too much overlap.)

But I agree with you, Skuhn. What would they consider a good commentary? And aren't there times that an academic commentary is appropriate, especially when it's a major film and all the people involved are dead?

Nevertheless, the line about John Carpenter's cigarette smoking was hilarious.

Would take a film scholar or film historian commentary over an actor's any day. I'm hesitant about director commentaries unless those that are commenting on a film they made recently because so often I get the impression that a director is watching his film for the first time in 20 years and just wants to watch it. I feel like a dunce listening to his licking his lips and breathing or I'm checking on the remote to see if I'm on the right audio track. But then you have people like Keane who, though they provide some insight, tend to get bogged down in scholasti-speak, a Harvard thesis paper with all the trimmings.

So what are some examples of dipshit commentaries?

One of my fav crap commentaries would have to be Peter Brunette's lazy ass handling of Blow-Up. Favorite line comes near the enigmatic ending of the film where Peter chimes in "Much ink has been spilled regarding this ending" followed by dead silence. Thanks for nothing Pete! Hope CC put a hot poker up his ass before he leaped into Amarcord.

Bogdanovitch's Citizen Kane and Bringing Up Baby were pure displeasure. This guy should know more than most...and just gives us the least.

Another fun commentary was King Kong. The first twenty minutes or so are fun to listen to, funner than the movie actually, listening to lacky Ken Ralston fall all over himself kissing his mentor Ray Harryhausen's ass. It was a little like Larry King's Brando interview.

[HerrSchreck]

I had originally, upon the appearance of the disc, voted KONG within the top 5 Bad Commentaries ever. Listening to him cream his dry goods over Harryhausen was just as bad as listening to that disco-boy whale Alain "I'll spell my first name as elegant as I please" Silver beat Ursini over the head relentlessly in NIGHTMARE ALLEY. Worst moment: him humiliating Ursini in his usual snide fashion telling him that the electronic instrument that is patently not a violin is a violin. Fabulous.

[zedz]

William Friedkin's appallingly mindless commentary on The Narrow Margin is my current worst listen (and there are some doozies). It sounds as though everything he knows about film noir is written on his hand, but he continues babbling inanely even after the sweat has washed the crib notes away (it takes about ten minutes). So we get such deathless gems as the 'fact' that films noirs can be distinguished by their simple black and white characterisations of the 'good guys' and 'bad guys', for example.

One of Marc Gervais' Bergman travesties (Persona) has convinced me life's too short for the rest of them. If he wants me to be his psychotherapist, he'll have to pay me.

A recent lowlight was Stephen Teo's none-more-pretentious commentary on 2046, in which every last on-screen detail was excruciatingly over-determined. Thus, in the final scene, Tony Leung isn't slumped in the back of a taxi because he's exhausted, or depressed, but because he's "resting his head on an imaginary woman" (as you do), or "on his own memory" - or some such nonsense. Meanwhile, the really interesting things about the film - its evolution during production and editing, its developmental relationship to previous films, the differences between the Cannes cut and the released version, the use of multiple cinematographers - aren't even mentioned.

I also have a special hole in my heart for the did-I-accidentally-sit-on-the-mute-button commentary Derek Malcolm gives for Record of a Tenement Gentleman (about 20 minutes of unedifying generalised comments on Ozu spread at random throughout the whole feature) and the alienated, withdrawn director's commentary on the alienated, withdrawn Two Lane Blacktop. Now, this is a film where I'd love to hear what Hellman was trying to get across, what he thinks about the performances, the characters and the narrative, but the comments are resolutely prosaic, along the lines of "this wasn't a real rainstorm - we had to use a hose"; "this town was pretty much exactly as it looks on the film."

Pardon my venting!

Bogdanovich generally has nothing to offer but his enthusiasm, but I find that way less aggravating than the above.

[HerrSchreck]

William Friedkin's appallingly mindless commentary on The Narrow Margin is my current worst listen (and there are some doozies).
Bogdanovich generally has nothing to offer but his enthusiasm, but I find that way less aggravating than the above.

Freidkin generally sucks. His LEOPARD MAN ditties are mostly useless too. Even comments to his own films follow the same line of thinking, a la,

"now we reach the point where Cloudy comes to the door to try to wake Popeye up out of his fog from the night before.. you can see the apartment is such a mess, just like Popeye's life, and he's handcuffed to the bed with his own handcuffs.."

I LOATHE this kind of commentary-- it's narration, not commentary. As for Hangdog Bogdoucheavich, I don't think it's so much what he says, but the uplumbable absurdity of his ubiquity on so so many discs, especially CC.

[Polybius]

listening to that disco-boy whale Alain "I'll spell my first name as elegant as I please" Silver

It sounds as though everything he knows about film noir is written on his hand

Back to back...I wish I had had some warning.

the alienated, withdrawn director's commentary on the alienated, withdrawn Two Lane Blacktop. Now, this is a film where I'd love to hear what Hellman was trying to get across, what he thinks about the performances, the characters and the narrative, but the comments are resolutely prosaic, along the lines of "this wasn't a real rainstorm - we had to use a hose"; "this town was pretty much exactly as it looks on the film."

He's pretty much all we've got. Wilson, Bird and Oates are all gone and Taylor claims he doesn't watch TV because he's afraid he'll run across a showing, so...

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Worst commentators? Any commentary track featuring Milla Jovovich. Listening to the one she did for Resident Evil, I could actually feel I.Q. points being obliterated...

Here's some more: http://www.ratethatcommentary.com/worst.php

[Polybius]

Stuart Baird, Brett Ratner and Renny Harlin making multiple showings

[colinr0380]

Thus, in the final scene, Tony Leung isn't slumped in the back of a taxi because he's exhausted, or depressed, but because he's "resting his head on an imaginary woman" (as you do)

Thats lucky, I was thinking about upgrading from the Tartan DVD just to get the commentary - I might leave it for now.

[zedz]

Thus, in the final scene, Tony Leung isn't slumped in the back of a taxi because he's exhausted, or depressed, but because he's "resting his head on an imaginary woman" (as you do)

Thats lucky, I was thinking about upgrading from the Tartan DVD just to get the commentary - I might leave it for now.

Swiftly going off-topic: I'm not sure which international editions Teo appears on, but I heard him on the Australian special edition, which does include the very worthwhile exclusive of a long interview with Wong - about the only worthwhile extra on the whole set. This may be worth the upgrade, and then you can judge Teo for yourself.

[cdnchris]

Looking at that Rate That Commentary site I'm reminded of the time I wasted on that Bowling for Columbine commentary I listened to. What a brutal, brutal track. I thought Moore was decent on Roger & Me so I have no idea why he decided to leave the track to a bunch of knobs, who just barely made it through college, that apparently helped on this film. But you wouldn't know it. Easily the worst commentary I've ever listened to.

[HerrSchreck]

Don't Talk About What You Don't Know commentary dept: JIMI PLAYS MONTEREY... Charles Shaar Murray's wet whopper of layman's noodling into technical zones he has no idea about-- and just assuming he's correct. When Hendrix slams into the opening chords of LIKE A ROLLING STONE, then chats a bit over the chords from the chorus, Murray claims that Jimi is being "oh-dai-shussly" cheeky by playing the chords from WILD THING for Dylan's milestone song. Which is utter bull-poo: Hendrix is playing Cmaj Fmaj Gmag, (tuned way slack practically to Dflat of course), the progression to L.A.R.S..

WILD THING (even as played by Hendrix @ Monterey) is Amaj Dmaj Emaj Dmaj... completely different set of chords. It interrupts an otherwise pretty nice commentary.

This is what happens when dudes start trying to be quote unquote authorities, they inevitably bleed into stuff they know nothing about and start making claims they're probably not sure about, but going on a weird intuition running a la "I feel strongly enough to want to go ahead & say it so it must be true-- yeah I'll go ahead & say it" just like Alain Silver a la the "violin" on NIGHTMARE ALLEY. It's a sense of gambling on ones intuition which unravels many men in many areas.

[richast2]

Looking at that Rate That Commentary site I'm reminded of the time I wasted on that Bowling for Columbine commentary I listened to. What a brutal, brutal track. I thought Moore was decent on Roger & Me so I have no idea why he decided to leave the track to a bunch of knobs, who just barely made it through college, that apparently helped on this film. But you wouldn't know it. Easily the worst commentary I've ever listened to.

yeah, that one's awful. I shut it off. Another one I couldn't get through was the one on North By Northwest..."There's Saul Bass's credit..."

[Faux Hulot]

Another one I couldn't get through was the one on North By Northwest..."There's Saul Bass's credit..."

Two that I couldn't get through recently, both from HBO's The Wire (which I loved, by the way):

* actors Dominic West and Michael K. Williams on a season 2 track, which was insufferably self-indulgent and in-jokey and had virtually nothing to say about anything pertaining to the show, and

* creator/writer David Simon, writer George Pelicanos and director Clark Johnson, one of whom casually dropped a major season 2 spoiler into a season 1 commentary. Must... seek... revenge...

[skuhn8]

Wow. I just finished watching the brilliant noir, House on 92nd Street, for the second time--this time with Eddie Muller's commentary. I don't remember which of his I'd listened to previously, perhaps something from the first Warner's noir box, but I don't recall have any problem with him. Until now. I don't think he talks for more than a third of the film, and 92nd only clocks in at 87 minutes. And most of his comments are along the lines of "huh, would love to have seen her act in more films". I thought Eddie would be a nice antidote to the Ursini/Silver noir saturation. Now I'd prefer their--as HerrShreck called it--internancing to this vast nothingness occupying an audio track.

[Spoiler, I guess]
Finally, in the third act we see what his problem is: he doesn't want to give anything away. He even states: "If this is your first time viewing you must be wondering who Christopher is." Huh? Eddie, dumbass, we've seen the film already! Assume that. Take that for granted. He then goes on to carefully explain where the gender reversal came from but without actually addressing it directly...because folks, he doesn't want to give anything away (well, like I just did--sorry) for those first-time viewers. What a spectacular film; what a disgraceful commentary.

Any other Eddie Muller gems?

[Belmondo]

Any other Eddie Muller gems?

Eddie Muller begins his commentary on I WAKE UP SCREAMING by telling us to look at the spine number on the DVD box and saying that it should be #1, as this was one of the first films noir. Could have fooled me - the movie I saw was a lighthearted whodunit with a couple of noir camera angles probably resulting from cramped sets. In general, however, I disagree with you and find Mullers' commentaries to be quite informative and great fun to listen to. Not all noirs are as good as HOUSE on 92nd STREET and Muller is often able to take lesser examples such as THE RACKET and turn them into must own discs through his commentary. He also knows who to focus on and I deeply appreciate his "video essay" on two of my noir favorites, Lizabeth Scott and Dan Duryea, on the Dark City disc of TOO LATE FOR TEARS. (The movie is great but the quality of the transfer is poor, so beware). I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your specific example but not your general theme.

[skuhn8]

So in disagreeing with me you would say that his commentary on House On 92nd Street is a strong commentary? The whole thing could be bullet-pointed on a 5X7 index card with space enough for doodling during the incredibly long gaps. Basically, he does not interrupt any of the dialogue in the film. My criticism is not against Eddie in general, but his commentary on House in particular.

[Belmondo]

So in disagreeing with me you would say that his commentary on House On 92nd Street is a strong commentary? The whole thing could be bullet-pointed on a 5X7 index card with space enough for doodling during the incredibly long gaps. Basically, he does not interrupt any of the dialogue in the film. My criticism is not against Eddie in general, but his commentary on House in particular.

No, I agree fully that his commentary on that one is weak. I just don't think we should try so hard to find a movie in which he "makes the list" for bum commentaries. The more commentaries you do, the more likely that some of them will be worse than others. Earlier, you gave your opinion that you would, in general, prefer to hear comments from experts and film historians rather than directors - I strongly agree with you on this and feel we should focus on the positive, rather than risk drawing people away from a talented noir lover who gave a short commentary on a short movie. Most of my favorite filmmakers made a couple of stinkers and you can usually count on Eddie to bring a real sense of joy to whatever he is talking about, and that sense of joy transcends anything I will ever read on threads with titles like "Most Vapid Commentary".

[skuhn8]

Ok, I agree that it isn't fair to slam somebody for what may by just one stinker in an otherwise competent body of work, whether director or commentator....

I started this whole thing because I found that I was spending too much time listening to commentaries in general, and bad ones specifically. Had hoped that sharing some of these lesser experiences would save time...close as I come to social work.

[Belmondo]

I am not among the Bogdanovich haters, but I may be coming over to the dark side after hearing his commentary on the new edition of TO CATCH A THIEF. Very disappointing, particularly considering that Bogdanovich and Hitchcock became fairly close professional friends. There are a few good observations - Hitchcock used Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart often during this period and his choices between the two were subtle and interesting. And, there are a couple of good anecdotes - the only time Hitchcock ever praised Bogdanovich was at a student seminar they both attended, and Hitch said he liked a film called "The Last MOVIE Show"! And, that's about it; the rest we already knew and have already heard elsewhere.

Devil's Advocate time - the movie is hardly among Hitchcock's best, so do we make allowance for an average commentary on an average movie? Plenty of great scenery and some nifty sexual innuendo (they sit close together, she opens the picnic basket of fried chicken and says "would you like a leg or a breast". And that's about it; the rest we have already seen Hitch do better elsewhere.