Darth Lavender wrote:I would argue, though, that even now making of documentaries aren't all that valued in their own right.
It is probably more difficult now with DVD increasing awareness of making of documentaries but at the same time causing them to seem less of a rare opportunity for a behind the scenes insight that should be savoured but more an expectation of any film now.
I'm extremely glad for that but there are differences in documentaries going from B roll footage without any commentary on what it is you are seeing (e.g. the two hours of silent footage on The Beast is extremely hard to get through) to the micro-managed EPK documentaries that at their worst can just be a bunch of interviews about how great everyone was. However DVD has caused everyone to raise their game - look at David Prior on Fincher's DVDs or Laurent Bouzerau on the Spielberg discs, or Mark Rance who all create insightful making of documentaries. Criterion are also involved in this too of course, combining bought in documentaries such as A.K. and Luck, Trust and Ketchup and so on with in-house produced interviews that complement the other features.
The other problem though is that for 'casual' audiences making of features are probably not that interesting unless they are about extreme events, like Burden of Dreams or Hearts of Darkness, that play out like mini-films in themselves (I'd also include the drama/tragedy of Lost In La Mancha). As a film fan I could pore over tons of DVD extra features going into the minutae of set production, special effects or rehearsals but realistically I do not expect my sentiments to be shared by too many others (though hopefully enough people to keep making ofs and commentary tracks being produced).
I thought A.K. itself was a wonderful documentary, giving a personal view of the filming which captures tiny moments (like the fussing over hair, the soldiers marching in period costume through the line of modern cars and so on) to capture the
feeling of the filming and the sense of being in Kurosawa's presence rather than just a dry cataloguing of events, with lots of breathing space left for us to pick out details that interest us rather than constantly being guided as to what to look at, while at the same time providing enough information to keep us orientated as to what is going on at the time. A portrait of Kurosawa at work rather than of Ran in particular, it provides teasing glimpses of some of the films most spectacular scenes and provides some thematic links to Kurosawa's other films but in a delicate manner, much more interested how much labour goes into the creative process and how the film crew works together like a small army than just of promoting the final film!
I wouldn't suggest that it was a definitive statement on the making of Ran but I don't belive it intended to be, and in not trying to capture all the 'important' events, it allowed itself room to capture the smaller moments, but small moments which contain resonance. In that sense it is a Marker film consistent with his other work rather than just a 'work for hire' project.
And don't even get me started on the sound-quality in that release. I literally could not understand what the actors were saying! It didn't even sound like English!!
