ShaunHuston filmblog

Before I began reviewing DVDs for PopMatters, I often found myself irritated by reviews that essentially just replicated someone's review of the film or TV show. However, now that I've had the experience of writing regular reviews, I have a different appreciation of this problem. Deciding what exactly it is that you are reviewing when writing about DVDs is not as simple as seems.

Before I produced my first review for PM, I had an ideal image of what a DVD review would look like: it would give a fresh perspective on the film/show, critical insight into the extras, and an assessment of sound and picture quality. However, it didn't take long for a few practical realities to intrude on this ideal.

For starters, I've found that the kind of perspective I'm able to provide on a film or on a television series depends a great deal on whether the DVD screening is my first look or not.  Ultimately, a first viewing is a first viewing, and the review can't help but reflect that fact.

Furthermore, as much as I might want to treat DVDs as an unique medium, in most cases, it's the film or show proper that is the most compelling thing about a disc. There's a pretty standard DVD package these days that includes some combination of: outtakes or deleted scenes, previews, and interviews. All too often, featured interviews are nothing more than a repackaging of promo material. Variations on this basic package might include behind-the-scenes material, and, of course, commentary tracks. Quality on these extras varies tremendously, but truthfully most just make me go, “meh.” While I'm turned off by the cheapness of adding, say, an HBO “First Look” feature and pretending that it provides some kind of special addition to a film, most added features are just sort of there. They're not usually bad, but they're not usually good either. They are what they are, which is to say, they are part of a standard, and standardized, package. As a practical matter, there simply isn't much to write about most extras, though I do think that that it's important to let readers know what a disc has on offer.

For better or worse, one reason for the standardization of DVDs is that viewers have come to expect added material. So, in spite of what I've written above, I also think that a lack of extras needs to be counted against a disc. And, honestly, there are films that Anne-Marie and I are waiting to buy until they are packaged “right.” The only review I've written where the extras where an integral part of the piece is of the newest Criterion Drunken Angel (1948). Criterion remains the gold standard for DVD production, and most films that I truly love, I want that company to pick up (in scanning my work for this post, I should also note that my review of the Brave New Films Boxset devotes significant attention to extras, but the political organizing function of those discs makes them exceptional).

On the other hand, it is possible to overstuff a DVD or to do a pale imitation of a Criterion disc. As I note in my Drunken Angel review, what really separates Criterion from the crowd is that the people at Criterion seem to actually love film and take it seriously as art. And while I have to be skeptical of the extent to which the company has gotten into the re-release game, most of the time “Special Editions,” “Deluxe Editions,” etc. that get turned out seem to have one purpose only: to milk more profit out of a title, and I don't think that's fundamentally the case for Criterion. In the other cases, the result is discs like the 25th Anniversary Edition of Gandhi (1982) of the Gattaca (1997) Special Edition, which offer little in the way of insightful, fun, or interesting extras; they just offer more.

As for the technical aspects, unless I'm looking at a film (or TV show) that required a substantial restoration or remastering, or one that is noticeably good or bad, sound and image quality is much like extras: as a practical matter, most of the time, there isn't much to note that isn't fundamentally related to the original work. Maybe if I knew more about the transfer and mastering process, I'd have more to write about on this issue. On the other hand, for how many readers of PM would extended discussions of DVD transfers be of interest? I'm guessing not many.

The upshot is this: no matter how much I idealized the idea of a DVD review, the film or the show is still the thing, the reason a disc(s) gets produced, and the reason that most people would consider renting or buying it in the first place. Only when a DVD is exceptional, for better or for worse, is there much to note beyond the featured movie or show.

Here's what I've noticed about my process:

1. If I've seen a film or series previously, I try to incorporate insights from those prior viewings into what I write about a DVD. This is particularly true for movies I've seen in the theater. I want readers to get a sense of how watching a film at home is going to be different from the theatrical experience.
2. The more obscure a film is, the more I review it as a "film" and less as a "DVD." There is a broad category of small and independent film that primarily attracts its audience on DVD and through home viewing, and not in theaters. I pretty well avoid requesting movies that had a wide release, especially those that are relatively recent, if I didn't see them in the theater. On the other hand, I will request "small" films that very few people had a chance to see before the home DVD release because I will be seeing it for the first time in that format, just like most of my readers.
3. I spot check extras. I want to get the gist of commentary tracks and make sure I know more or less what's going on with the other features, but unless I pick up on something worth noting, I don't think there's much reason to watch or listen to every minute of every extra. And I'll admit that this is partly due to my desire not to reward companies that just slap a bunch of “canned” material onto a disc to make it seem as if something interesting is included even when it isn't. There's also a time issue. I try to turn reviews around within a week or two, maybe three or four with TV series, and that doesn't leave much time to digest commentary tracks, watch deleted scene after deleted scene, and so on. My goal with the extras is give readers a good idea of what they can expect. And most of the time, there isn't much more to do than that.
4. As already suggested, I tend not to write much about the quality of sound and image unless a disc gives some particular reason to do so. To the extent that I do write about the transfer, it is in often in relationship to how a movie translates on a home television, especially if the photography, or sound, is notable to begin with.