Recently I rented a DVD of the award-winning 2003 documentary Winged Migration. Famed as one of the most unique and beautiful films ever made, Winged Migration literally takes the viewer up into the sky as it follows birds on their long-distance seasonal flights around the world. Somehow, seemingly as if by magic, the cameras are right there amongst the migrating birds, and you feel as if you are flying thousands of feet in the air with your fellow avians over landscapes which range from the picturesque to the breathtaking. When the film was over, all I could say was “Wow!”
And then, I made the terrible, terrible mistake of clicking on “Special Features” in the DVD menu. Ten minutes later, I realized retroactively that I didn’t like the film after all. In fact, I hated it.
Why? Because among the special features was one of those short “The Making of…” mini-documentaries which divulged the secrets of how they filmed Winged Migration. And it revealed that the film was all a lie. A beautiful lie, but a lie nonetheless.
The filmmakers had not documented any actual migrations. Not only were the birds not migrating, they weren’t even wild birds! They were basically trained actors, with wings. The “making of…” documentary showed, step by step, how they had hand-raised some migratory birds from the moment they hatched and had, using the “imprinting” techniques of Konrad Lorenz, tricked the birds into thinking that the cameramen were their mommies. As explained in Wikipedia, “The filial imprinting of birds was a primary technique used to create the movie [Winged Migration], which contains a great deal of footage of migratory birds in flight. The birds imprinted on handlers, who wore yellow jackets and honked horns constantly. The birds were then trained to fly along with a variety of aircraft, primarily ultralights.”
Making Winged Migration
So to film the birds “migrating” somewhere, the director actually just attached a camera to a motorized hang glider (called an “ultralight”), then let the birds out of their cages and started filming as the birds followed the ultralight around on a short flight, after which they all landed and were put back in cages. To make matters worse, the birds didn’t follow the ultralight from region to region on long-distance flights, as the viewer was led to believe. No, as revealed to my shock in the “making of…” documentary, the filmmakers packed the birds away in shipping containers and actually trucked them around the world (on vehicles or in jetliner cargo holds) and then unpacked them only when they were at some pre-determined spot chosen by location scouts for its natural beauty. At which point, the ultralight would again take off, and the “migrating birds” would follow it around for a few minutes, before landing and getting back in the cages.
The final straw came when the director showed how even apparently serendipitous moments of passing “local color” were in fact all carefully constructed artificial props. That water buffalo wandering by in the distance? Someone pushed it into the scene. That quaint villager? A paid extra.
Great God in heaven! What kind of monstrosity is this? The entire film was a deception. I felt like a drunken sailor waking up next to the previous night’s beer-goggle conquest, only to see a cheap wig and smell the stale whiskey breath, and realize I had been tricked.
Why in the world did the filmmakers reveal their deception? It had been such a wonderful reverie. The movie was utterly ruined for me after I had already seen it.
Zombie you are so right about this. It’s like the old joke about the young guy who picks up a beautiful woman and takes her home only to find out after she takes off all of her false parts that she is old and ugly. Hollywood is not called magic for nothing. These idiots should realize that we want to be fooled and for a moment believe in the characters and the story. I feel your pain when one of the spoiled bunch actually mock the character they are playing. I never watch the special features anymore.
The writers of any films are, inevitably, the source of whatever ends up being presented as “the film,” no matter how much addicted, don’t-have-anything-better-to-do watchers want to pretend that the content of the film is their motivation. We figured this out about 30 years ago, stopped watching TV or movies and chose real life as a fine thing. You don’t need film crews. Just wash the windows on your house and car, clean your glasses once a day and enjoy. Live your own life instead of paying Hollywood writers to decide what its content should be. I will not turn my mind, my eyes or my ears over to them. The special features are not what ruin the film. They are the film. Becoming disillusioned is really a good thing since it exposes illusions that can be laid aside. It’s a good thing.
my all time favourite film, except for “march of the penguins”, disappointing to learn how they made the sausage in the kitchen…
This is why Steven Spielberg is a genius. He never does “voice over” narrations of his films.
The Behind the Scenes stuff isn’t designed for the general public. It’s for the fans, the hardcore kids who really wanna know how the sausage was made. It also differentiates the DVD from the bootlegged versions on the internet. It adds value, the studios have to do it.
There is nothing more exciting than walking on to a Hollywood film set. The only problem for a film professional is, you’re going to be stuck there for the next twelve hours. Then you’ll probably have to come back to that studio every day for the next three weeks. (yeah, I know, “boo-hoo-hoo!”)
Ryan Gosling is a nice guy in person. But the video camera probably caught him after several hours under the lights, after several dozen set-ups, a half-dozen takes. He’s bored out of his mind, he’s likely sick of that sex doll, but he’s trying to keep up the energy, trying to keep it lively for the crew. It’s hard work. To paraphrase Cypress Hill, “It’s a fun job, but it’s still a job…”
I quit watching these “Special Features” a long long time ago. I’m one of those people who ignores long running TV series until the run has been completed and then goes out to buy the box-set and enjoy investing myself in the entire show over a period of weeks (e.g. The Wire, The Shield, West Wing, etc).
I think it’s the “love” word that did it for me in the end. Has ever a word been so utterly diminished in meaning by its utterence from the acting community? Every actor just loves every other actor they have ever come in contact with. Some actors are just like fathers to other actors (apparently) and they are all just the bestest mates in the world ever and oh, they just love each other so totally and utterly sincerely.
How do these people in the acting profession build real personal relationships when “love” is such a meaningless term to them? When an actor tells his son that he loves him does the son think “that’s great” or does he think “so what, you love the Key Grip in that short-film you made 3 years ago”?
Plus, I hate to see tough onscreen characters show themselves to be blubbering babies offscreen (I wont mention any names…..aahem……Walton Goggins…cough cough)
The only film the special feaures has affected for me was Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. It was okay and not particularly funny, but I liked it even less after the special features, because the deleteted scenes were much funnier than anything that was left in the film.
Well, now I don’t feel like I’ve missed anything since I’ve never watched a “special features” DVD. Never felt the need and can’t see the point of revealing “the magic” behind the scenes.
The “Special Features” section of Ayn Rand’s “We the Living” is worth watching. It consists of all the scenes she deleted, after the movie (produced without her permission during the war in Mussolini’s Italy) finally wound up in her hands. Il Duce’s Fascist propaganda is briefly noted as having been deleted; one never sees any of it. What you do see are the scenes thrown out for “distracting sub-plot,” “artistic choice,” or whatever. Some are interesting scenes themselves, in the context of the film, or for their deletion.
One doesn’t need to be a Rand fan to enjoy the film, either.
A slight twist on your perspective: Regarding movies and the theme of fantasy vs. reality, I have had a similar, but reverse, experience.
The school used in “The Life Before Her Eyes” is only a few blocks from my house. It’s on a main street and we pass it almost daily. We were eager to watch the movie to see our neighborhood, but were rather dismayed by the grimness of the opening scenes. A sudden awareness dawned as we watched the first 10 minutes (or so) that our perception of that school building would be forever changed if we continued to watch the movie, so we turned it off! It was returned (mostly) unviewed. We didn’t want its fantasy horror to intrude on and alter the reality of our daily lives.
Visual images (particularly ghastly ones) are a powerful thing that can play with your brain, if you’re not careful. Disillusionment can actually be useful in some cases, so watching the “special features” should probably be required for kids! I, personally, do not watch them. I choose to either completely immerse myself in the experience — or not.
This is part and parcel of the modern view of filmmakers, that is that the audience wants to feel like ‘insiders’ regarding the production and wants to feel like it personally knows the stars.
THis is the ‘sports’ – ization of movies, the need to bring audience members into the production like we are brought into the locker room and the practice sessions as well as getting to watch the game.
Not for me to decide whether the audience wants this or not, but I certainly don’t want it. Watching a movie is like reading a book; it’s a story, and I want to feel x or y or z feelings when it’s over. I don’t want a parallel narrative of what the author had for breakfast the morning he wrote the first chapter, or what his thoughts were as he approached the plot climax.
JUST LEAVE ME TO READ THE @#$%^&*( BOOK! and to watch the *&^%$# movie. if I wanted to hear actors talk on the topic of themselves, I’d watch any mainstream news network, where they seem to double as political hacks these days. But for me, actors should shut up and act. TOo many have already ruined my enjoyment of their performances.
I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW THESE THINGS… but I guess I’m in the minority.
This ain’t Cinema Paradiso, ain’t it?
Digital media is ripe ground for added features, unfortunately no one quite knows what they are. The Vicar of Dibley showing Hugo behind the scenes with gray hair looking even older than his father? That’s a mistake. Narration by the director who picks apart each scene? Again, the mystery is demystified. And who really cares anyway? The artistic process is a messy, messy business. Do I want to see Michaelangelo cleaning his brushes and pacing the floor while trying to come up with some flourish for the Sistine Chapel? Or do I want to glory in the final results of his genius?
This is old thinking applied to new technology. Determining what added content could or should be will make DVDs and ebooks worth paying for. Until someone reimagines entertainment it will be 20th century thinking and juvenile pretensions passing for creativity.
Confirms what Sherlock Holmes and all good magicians say: “Never explain how you did it.” It ruins the show.
“Special Features” aren’t always bad, though often are. Thank goodness Hollywood produces mainly movies and flicks which are bad enough and can’t be made worse by a “Special Features” section. The few films, on the other hand, that do come out of Hollywood can be positively ruined by a “Special Features” section, can you imagnine a “Schindler’s List” gag reel or out-takes from “The Lives Of Others”!! The absolute worst thing on any DVD is the “Director’s Commentary” option (thank god it’s an option) which allows you to watch the entire movie, or deleted scenes even, with a voice over from the director or actors. Who really listens to that crap? Why on earth do I care about James Camerons impressions about a given scene in Titanic? Do I have my auto mechanic videotape a repair job and play it back later on so I can hear his running commentary on changing my serpentine belt with a 1/2″ drive as opposed to a 3/4″? Seriously now, the “Director’s Commentary” just takes up useful space on a DVD, I mean, if you’re going to have “Special Features” in the first place why not devote that space to more bloopers or extended scenes?
You are totally spot on. Its like watching the rehearsals for a play and then trying to be suprised by the experience – only this is like doing that backwards. Or its like we’re too stupid to get it once we’ve got it.
My wife and I recently watched the DVD versions of “Taken”. We did’t watch the “Bonus” disc of added features because we didn’t want to be “taken”. (The only added features to watch are the trailers).
One more thing, why can’t they put the preachy public service announcements in the bonus materials too – these obnoxious sermons partially ruin the whole movie experience for me; I’m reminded of who these movie types actually are and keep looking for more sermonizing in the movie. Good Grief!!!
Whenever I feel like trying a “true story” movie, I do some investigation to see the extent of the fictionalization. I’ve been fooled too many times by “true story” movies, only to learn about the ridiculous extent of “artistic license”. Usually there’s no apparent reason for it other than perhaps the filmmakers’ quest for “creativity”. Great article, Zombie — and thanks for all you do up in SF.
I guess if Special Features ruin the movie so much for you, don’t watch them. I tend to like some special features and hate others. I think the special feature on the “Knocked Up” DVD which showed what the movie would have been like if they’d cast other actors in the Seth Rogen role (most hilariously Bill Hader riffing on just about every celebrity impression in the book) was brilliant. It showed that the filmmakers and actors had fun making the movie (and was funny in its own right). I thought the special features on Weird Al’s “UHF” were also well done (his commentary explained in very funny terms the demise of Orion as a motion picture studio and how everyone there blamed him for the downfall; and the deleted scenes showed just how bad some of the TV programming at U-62 could have been — yes, worse than “Conan the Librarian”). Oh, and the Nina and Monk segment on the “For Your Consideration” disc was better than the movie itself. And if something is a major technical or artistic achievement (“Coraline”) I love going back and seeing how it was done, but that’s just the stop-motion animation geek in me.
But yeah, in some cases you really want to skip the deleted scenes (they usually are deleted for a reason… the one exception I can think of is “Nim’s Island” where the scenes they deleted really did affect the theme and the story to an extent where the final cut felt cheapened by their absense — and I was very glad I had gone back and watched the deleted scenes).
“How we did it” extras on DVD’s are wonderful, especially for teenagers. What they demonstrate is that putting images on film takes a lot of work and behind the scenes design. Exposing the process shows that it’s a job and very similar to other jobs in that respect. Nothing for free. Excellence requires blood sweat and tears, and there’s no getting around that.
In teaching guitar to kids breaking down how a band creates a particular sound works out much the same way. Often what you *think* you hear isn’t that at all, and usually what some imbecile tabbed and uploaded is *not* what the band actually does. And parts you imagine are exceedingly technical and difficult often turn out to be simplicity itself. Exposing the process shows how things were done. There ain’t no magic involved, just a lot of clever layering. And a lot of work on the design end.
Is this really any different than art schools?
I can’t see that it hurts kids to have a concept of how the layering works whether on film or audio recording. Even if they don’t do film or audio later in life what they learn can be useful and applied as needed.
I have found that I enjoy the Special Features that accompany the films on DVDs. Admittedly, I usually only watch them when I already have seen the film and it is too cold or stormy to go outside, but they are interesting.
The difference is that I know the show was fake in the first place. The move “Cloverfield” was shot as a documentary, as a vidotape found in the rubble of Nuked New York, but I was not shocked to find out it was all fake. Similarly, with another Special Features I saw recently I was not upset to discover that a group of alien parasites had not taken over a small town in the northwest.
They could have shot Winged Migration as a documentary on how it is possible to go formation flying with birds. In fact, there have been magazine articles and TV shows about the guy who first did that. Instead it appears they billed it as nature picture, but in reality it was only a little more true to life than than New York getting trashed. It is not the Special Feature but the basic concept behind the film that is the problem.
Y’know, I disagree entirely. I enjoy looking at the creative process that *winds up* producing something brilliant. Edison pointed out that 1000 “failed” attempts at a light bulb taught him 1000 ways not to make one. Goodness knows when I design something, I reject idea after idea but keep narrowing it down until it’s “right.”
Very few creative geniuses just spill out fully-formed masterpieces from the brow of Jove like Mozart. Beethoven’s sketchbooks reveal how much furious wrestling he did with his materials, and how many ideas he considered which would have been worse, or at least less brilliant, than the finished work.
And so for me at least it was a great deal of fun to read the transcripts of the Spielberg/Lucas brainstorming sessions for what became Raiders of the Lost Ark, and how many really bad ideas they rejected (unfortunately, most of them cropped up in Temple of Doom).
If one wants to paint in broad liberal/conservative strokes here, than one might observe that the conservative viewpoint recognizes that creativity requires *work,* not the “effortless grace of gods.”
There’s nothing new about fake nature “documentaries,” not since Disney’s crew herded all those poor lemmings off a cliff.
As someone who earns his living as both a magician and film maker I am intrigued by the creative process and sometimes have bought DVD’s of films just to watch the directors cuts and other special features, they are extremely educational. No one has to watch them, it is similar to those T.V. shows that expose how magic tricks are actually done, you can always change the channel. As a professional I really marvel at the creative ingenuity of the folks who keep coming up with their wonderful unique ways to tell their stories and entertain us. Perhaps the writer has not fully recovered from a traumatic childhood shock experienced upon the realization that there is no Santa Claus and is still reacting despondently to the revelation of reality.
How many “special effects” (ie. the lie!) was used during making the recent “Avatar”?
The curse of living in a confessional society, especially when it comes to entertainment. Although the era passed long before I was born, I kind of like the big studio system that made sure all its stars appeared clean (physically and in terms of substance abuse), perpetually beautiful, kind and, most of all, normal. Even if Star X was an absolute jackass, the kids admiring that star at least saw only his manufactured virtues.
Same goes, of course, for the magic behind the movies. Every magician knows better than to reveal his tricks. But of course, Hollywood has shown us that, while it’s powerful, it’s not wise.
A lot of times, I just find special features boring. Or worse, as you pointed out, is finding out that the actors you just enjoyed watching are not funny or likable.
But one big exception: I just got the “lunch box” set of Band of Brothers for Christmas, and the special features are excellent. I enjoyed the extended interviews with the actual veterans as much as (possibly more than) I enjoyed the series. And I usually could care less about special effects, but learning how they filmed the air drop, recreated the forest being hit by artillery, filmed the foxholes scenes–fascinating stuff.
As a teacher of film and video. The extras are a valuable tool for showing ‘up and coming’ video/film students how things are done. Some of the pre-production and post-production stuff is quite amazing, and yes, can spoil the real film. But, like others have said, you don’t have to watch them if you do not want to spoil the magic show. Every disc has different extras, from editing, to animating, you name it. Some is good, some is so-so. It is a great look into the industry and how complicated movies have become.
I always tell my students, that making the extras is more employment opportunities. Get rid of the extra stuff and a whole lot of jobs go away.
I watched season two of “24″ on DVD. In one of the special “featurettes”, someone — I forgot whether he was a writer, director, etc., but he was obviously instrumental in the creation of at least a couple episodes — was wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt.
That a Hollywood type would wear that shirt isn’t surprising in the least, but to do so in a documentary about the ultimate counter-terrorism television drama goes beyond ironic. I haven’t taken “24″ seriously since then.
I have studied filmaking a bit, and it does take some of the magic away. Especially if a film is done poorly or has bad acting. Then I sit there thinking about how they lit the set and so on.
When the commentators on “Forrest Gump” revealed their ignorance of historical background, I turned it off.
But I’m still glad to have the movie on DVD.
Like the magic of the 2008 Obama campaign….pure smoke and mirrors.
Okay, you teacher types. How do you teach your students about film making in the 30′s and 40′s. There are some really great films available on DVD with no crib notes.
I submit that one of the things that makes alot of older films great on DVD is that we can’t be seduced into the back room of film making.
You’re right, skip ‘em. Watching tongue-tied actors try to explain a movie without the aid of their memorized and rehearsed lines wipes the magic clean. Their fellow actors are always “amazing.”
It all depends on the movie. I’ve found features where all the people do is talk about how wonderful they are a real snooze. On the other hand I find it interesting to have the director and screenwriters who have adopted a famous book discuss their decision making processes on everthing from simplifying mulitiple subplots to how to show on the screen what had been a character’s internal doubt on the page.
I had exactly the same feeling, for the same reason, a couple of years ago when I rented the DVD.
What really got me was that the producers really thought it was OK to abuse both the birds and the audience in this fashion — so much so that they proudly documented every step, indicting themselves in the process.
It’s the absolute and perfect certainty that the product of one’s mind will always be above reproach. Just like we see from the White House and the administration each day today.
The technique of using the imprinting behavior of birds and ultra-light aircraft to guide migrating flocks was, I believe, developed by the folks at Operation Migration [www.operationmigration.org] in the early 2000′s in an effort to reestablish the endangered whooping crane back to its earlier range by raising whooping crane chicks in captivity and then train them how to migrate [a behavior juvenile birds must learn from an adult] using the ultra-light to act as an adult bird to guide them along their migration route. I learned about this program yeas ago on a science program. I believe that Operation Migration has achieved very good results with their program and have successfully reestablished migrating flocks of whooping cranes, sandhill cranes. It’s a shame that their technique seems to have been coopted by a group with less good judgment [who knows what their real intentions or motivations were]. The fact that the producers were willing to ‘expose’ themselves in the bonus features does indicate a certain level of integrity in the producers, atleast they didn’t need to be exposed in some backhanded way.
I don’t know if there is any connection between the two groups, and I have no connection with either.
As to the merits or demerits of the bonus features contained in DVD’s maybe something later.
“I begin to think, Watson,” said Holmes, “that I make a mistake in explaining. ‘Omne ignotum pro magnifico [everything unknown appears magnificent],’”
There are times (although rare)when the extras make the movie better. I thoroughly enjoyed Spinal Tap and loved the extra voiced in commentary of the boys staying in character and giving us a ‘behind the scenes’ of what actually happened when the director ‘Marty’ (Rob Reiner) screwed them. I not sure which way I enjoy the movie more the original or the voiced over commentary.
Yeah, I used to enjoy those “wild animal” shows, the sort that show mice and bugs and stuff.
Then I noticed those “wild bushes” did not have any debris inside the branches at ground level, and took a closer look at the trackless sand. Sand that has been laying for a while has a smooth look to it. Sand that has been freshly brushed has a sand paper look to it.
I don’t usually watch the features section on DVDs for the reasons the writer notes. But certainly there are exceptions. For instance, I saw a wonderful documentary “Been Rich All My Life” about the Silver Belles, a group of ex-dancing showgirls who are in their 80s and 90s and still performing. In the documentary they do a dance that seems to be known by all tap dancers, the Shim Sham Shimmy. The features section teaches you the dance and it was fun as heck to do. So you ended up dancing along with the showgirls.
Also I love to learn the “how it was done” in Alfred Hitchcock’s films. What I have learned about them was through research in books and on the Internet, but it could just as well have been in an added features section of DVD. This knowledge doesn’t seem to detract from the film for me, only adds to it deliciously, the finding out what he did to engage you or scare you to death. Like learning about the glass of milk Cary Grant is bringing up the stairs to his wife in the film Suspicion. The glass grabs our attention and it looks strangely intriguing. We know what’s in store for the wife, that the milk is poisoned. Hitchcock achieved this effect by putting a little light inside the glass so the milk ominously glows. And notice the spider-web-like cross-hatching on the wall, which also suggests being caught in a net, as surely his wife will be.
http://www.sheilaomalley.com/archives/002388.html Or that Hitchcock achieved a very dead-looking Janet Leigh in the shower scene in Psycho because she didn’t look dead enough in the takes, too much chest movement, so his wife suggested using a still photo.
And one of my favorite films, Visions of Light, is the history of cinematography. There you learn how various effects were achieved. For instance, that Almendros, the cinematographer in Days of Heaven, filmed the entire movie at “the magic hour” using only natural light at sundown. Learning “how it was done” is delightful.
Not all “Special Features” are bad. Although I usually don’t bother with them, some of them do add to the value of the main feature. Oftentimes that is the stuff of “Jeopardy” and the like.
I can understand why the author of the bog was frustrated, however, since the film in question was a documentary. A documentary, in my view, is supposed to be documenting actual events, and if anything is re-enacted or staged, it should say so in the film. So, to be sold a bill of goods and then be told afterwards that most of most of them were faked sounds awful.
Sometimes, the bonus materials add appreciation to the movie. For example, the bonus materials on the “Rescue Dawn” movie show the extreme measures the crew went through to make the movie (and it’s a good movie). For those unfamiliar with the movie, it’s about a US Navy pilot who was shot down on his first mission during the Vietnam War. He was on the wrong side of the border when captured. The story is about his captivity and eventual escape. It’s based on a true story.
IIRC, the actors each lost about 60 pounds before filming began to show the effects of their captivity. They shot the movie in reverse order. During the jungle sequences, they were running around barefoot in areas filled with dangerous snakes and other hazards. The movie itstelf was quite good and the measures they took to film it were extraordinary. I would’ve never known that had I skipped the bonus materials.
Shorts.
The only thing that should be on a disk appart from the movie is a short movie. Maybe from an up’n'comer.
There ought to be a law about it.
And another thing; who are those sick people who script trailers?
1 Fade in, title. Music.
2 Introduce characters.
3 Scene from opening
4 Scene where first shocking twist occurs
*5 Best Joke In Movie*
6 Second shocking twist in movie
7 Representative line from lead character
8 Fade out
Would this be a bad time to bring up “merkins’ and ‘fluffers’?
What you describe happened to me, not with DVD extras, but with a TV special about the making of the first Star Wars movie many years ago. After the magic of seeing that movie, how disappointing it was to see that Luke Skywalker’s snazzy space car was actually cheap looking plastic suspended on a stick attached to a jeep being driven in circles for the camera. At that moment, I realized that the pleasure of film (at least certain genres)is in the pure fun and escapism and I didn’t want to know how it was done. Instead of being enthralled by the story, we’re invited instead to admire the technical acumen of the film makers. It’s like they give us a great story that engages us emotionally and then immediately want to take it away. And haven’t these behind the scenes looks at everything helped make us a jaded audience?
I am surprised someone as perceptive and media-aware as Zombie actually thought a documentary had a smidgen of truth in it. Movies, documentaries included, are snapshots of fakery, not reality. Michael Moore makes entertainment movies, not documentaries that are even a dim reflection of a slice of life.
All of this was common knowledge to people who read the paper.
The Blade Runner Director’s Cut
makes no sense! I saw it and I could not
understand the movie at all as they eliminated
the voice over (ya, a helpful voice over!) I only
understood the movie when I watched the original.
“I guess if Special Features ruin the movie so much for you, don’t watch them.”
Absolutely, whaddya crying ’bout Zombie. You’ve got the buttons.
When will they do a “making of…” for “An Inconvenient Truth”?
Will it include the gopher-girls in the ‘make-up trailer’?
With “Winged Migration”, I was actually glad that I watched the “making of” documentary. It was obvious during the film that, spectacular though it was, there was something going on that wasn’t quite authentic. I’d rather *know* what that something was than just have vague suspicions.
I like seeing how special effects were done, but then, I also like seeing explanations of how magic tricks were done. I don’t mind seeing a movie’s dirty laundry, and can’t think of a case where it’s retroactively spoiled a movie for me. The only thing that annoys me is the *boring* behind the scenes stuff, like the outtakes that just consist of somebody flubbing his lines and laughing at himself.
How old are you? Did you think those Disney nature documentaries about Barry the Bear making it through the winter actually followed one bear?
It’s amazing that people as credulous as you make it into adulthood and a pity you’r allowed to operate vehicles never mind vote.
The first commentary I listened to was Mel Gibson on Braveheart, I think it was…and when he talked about his rationale for shooting certain scenes at different frame rates to get the cinematic effects he wanted, I was fascinated. The amount of decision-making used to film scenes went far beyond “point the camera and shoot.” – Of course it would, but I had just never thought too much about it. It opened my eyes, so to speak.
Now, after having heard several commentaries of varying quality (where directors or producers talk about anything BUT the scene going on) I am less inclined to care about the psecial features. However, I still like to find out about the creative process and will give them a look. I mean, really: who would have known that the batmobile redesign in Batman begins actually WORKS and is not just special effects? I have got to get me one of those!
If you don’t like ‘em, don’t watch ‘em. Quit your crying.
Since I like to fly and I like to take pictures, I enjoyed learning about the Special Features for ‘Winged Migration.’ The filmmakers got to fly side by side with the birds – and they got paid for it. What fun!
But I’m a not a film student, so I usually skip the special features section of fictional movies. Effects that appeared to be whimsical and lighthearted turn out to involve hours, days and months of tedious detail work. Sometimes it’s interesting, but if you want to escape from reality for a few hours, that’s not the way to do it.
It’s the fourth wall, not the third. The expression comes from stage theater, where a set made to look like a room is built with three walls, and the actors behave as though the fourth side, left open to the audience, is in fact another wall. (They use the same set design in most sitcoms.) Hence, addressing or acknowledging the audience is “breaking the fourth wall.”
Z. SOOOO TRUE!
I have a double-whammy of an example. After watching and thoroughly enjoying ‘The Bourne Identity’ – even the way the filmmakers had updated the setting – I made the mistake of watching the special features. Only then did I learn that the whole motivation to make the movie for Damon et al was because Boooosh had caused a ‘disturbance in the Force’ or something. So, in my eyes, the whole series of Bourne movies became tainted and Damon joined my long list of actors who, because of their incessant pin-headed hectoring, have to work extra hard to suspend my disbelief.
I love Special Features. For me knowing how they did something does not diminish the magic. When you go to the theater, you know you are not watching real life and it is still enjoyable. I am fascinated by computer effects and having a literature degree I like to know what the makers were trying to say.
Having said that, I avoid reading or listening to anything about actors as much as I can. I never watch them being interviewed or read the celebrity rags. It is hard enough to shut out the world to get into that groove of suspension of disbelief. I don’t want it spoiled by remembering something stupid the actor said in real life.
I love Gary Cooper’s screen persona–I don’t want to know what a scum he was in real life. And I can continue in my blissful ignorance because they made it easier in the old days by keeping most of the lurid details of actors’ personal lives out of the press. I would actually have to get a book to read about him–which I will never do. But with today’s celebrities we don’t have that protection. Now, by just standing in the line at the supermarket and glancing at the tabloids, I find out stuff about the idiot celebrities that I could have been happy for the rest of my life never knowing. So despite my best efforts, I still have a list of several actors who I can no longer enjoy anything they do because they have just opened their stupid mouths too much. George Clooney comes to mind.
I almost never watch the ‘Making Of’ part of the movie. I instinctively knew it would detract, not add to, the movie. Sometimes, if I’m bored, I’ll watch it if I really didn’t like the movie; otherwise, never.
I tend to agree with you, but then I remember a book from the late sixties about the Makeing of 2001: A Space Odyssey. I learned how Kubrick got that shot where the astronaut runs around the inside of a centriguge, or how he stands at the 6 o’clock position while his partner sits at the 12, their heads pointing at each other. It never ruined the magic for me, but did make me appreciate more the craft and hard work involved in making a movie.
I can relate to the disappointment that comes with learning anything about the people who make movies. However, there is hope… Check out the DVD on the making of “Hellboy II.” (Yes, I think it’s a separate DVD, not strictly a Special Feature — or rather, a Special Feature on its own disc.)
I accidentally watched the “making of” DVD before the actual film! (As a Netflix subscriber, I put the wrong DVD in my queue first.) Watching how the cast and crew approached the making of that film really enhanced my enjoyment of the movie, when I saw it.
It can make up for some of the Special Features-related suffering we’ve all had to bear. And Ryan Gosling is nowhere to be seen. Enjoy.
34 years ago, I played in my my high school’s marching band. Then, most high school bands played current (or year old) radio hits. Except ours. Our conductor selected John Phillip Sousa, and other traditional, marching band music. We were like watching “Music Man”.
A scout from Disneyland invited us, if we were ever in the neighborhood, to perform at Disneyland.
After some fund-raising, begging, and swapping of favors we went.
Disneyland gave us a tour of the area behind the attractions, including the shops that carve, paint, repair and maintain them. Then we fell in, formed up and warmed up, behind a big green steel gate. The gate opened, we played and marched, down “Main Street”. The guests who came to Disneyland stepped up onto the sidewalk to watch us pass. We were The Magic! We were a part of Disneyland.
We performed in formation, in step, in key. One cycle, out an inconspicuous gate, and our return to the back lot.
Then we changed to normal clothes and were admitted to the park as guests.
Then, the rides cost a ticket. Something from an A ticket to an E ticket. We were each given a book of tickets with no letter value, just “Honored Guest”. I bought a book of tickets to use because I wouldn’t use a single one of that gift. I have that book still today.
Whether your seeing ‘the back lot’, ‘the making of’, ‘the magic’, ‘the sausage being made’, sours you or not depends on the culture providing it. Do they respect and value their customer? Do they sell what they believe in?
In the interviews and commentary it is always interesting to hear how the film makers spent so much time creating a back story or character interpretation THAN NEVER APPEARS ON THE SCREEN, you understand that they spent all of their time doing the background work the forgot to make an interesting movie. When you hear how they painstakingly got every detail historically accurate you know why the movie was so boring, concentrate on the story please! And dump the behind the scenes interviews where everyone parrots how this was the “greatest group of people I ever worked with”, “(director,writer,producer) is so talented I am so thankful for the opportunity” save if for you a** kissing meeting at The Ivy.
I’ve sure seen some crappy “special features”, but none stick in my mind at the moment as actually ruining the movie. I get the concept, though. One of my favorite movies of the last several years is Children of Men. If you watch the bonus stuff, it is clear that the guys behind it are all out-and-out Marxists. I had to choose to ignore it and just remember the well-made film.
I really hate all the ones where everyone involved gushes over each other about their beauty and genius.
My vote for Special Features done right:
The director commentary from Peter Jackson on Lord of the Rings.
Jason Schwartzman giving the “MTV cribs” treatment for Versailles on the disc for Marie Antoinette.
One major exception is Team America: World Police. I feel that they kept the best jokes for the “outtakes” in the bonus features.