New on DVD

The director of 'Eastern Promises' discusses why he gives the best DVD commentary

By Sean Axmaker
Special to MSN Movies

David Cronenberg is not only one of the most interesting and intense filmmakers working today, he's also one of the most thoughtful and articulate directors to ever record a DVD commentary track. His commentaries on "A History of Violence," "Dead Ringers," "Videodrome," "The Fly," and even his early feature "Rabid" are observant, introspective and instructive, and he returns to the commentary booth for the DVD release of his latest film, "Eastern Promises," a dark crime thriller set in the London underworld of Russian gangsters and human trafficking. I spent so much time in our brief interview session discussing DVDs that I was cut off before even getting to the film, let alone the question that was really plaguing: Does Cronenberg use a DVD player, or can he simply insert discs directly into his body like James Woods in "Videodrome"? The answer to that will have to wait for another interview.

MSN Movies: What's in your DVD player?

David Cronenberg: "La Vie En Rose." Because I am a member of the Academy and so I get these screeners from various producers and studios.

Do you watch a lot of films on DVD?

Most of my film watching is on DVD. I very rarely go to the cinema.

Is that a preference?

Yes, it is. At this point in my life, I'm not so interested in the social aspects of movie watching, other than the ones that I have at home, which I wind up watching with my wife or with my children. So that's enough socializing. I don't really need to go to a mall and hang out and do all that stuff that goes along with a lot of film watching these days.

I think of "Videodrome," and people watching media in more isolated situations. Do you think that's happening to cinema because of DVD?

It's obvious that there are some movies that still get a huge turnout. But I do think that there's a lot of isolation going on. To me it's more like reading a book. I like to be able to stop it and start it the way you would stop reading a book, especially if people insist on making two-hour-and-40-minute movies. You don't sit and read "War and Peace" all the way through in one sitting.

Some of your earlier films, notably "Videodrome" and "eXistenZ," posit a future of interactive and immersive media experiences. Have you been interested in trying to create something like that yourself?

I have been interested in the possibility of making a game that is really art. Is that possible? I'm not sure that it is, but I'm not sure that it isn't, either. At one point I did dip my toe into that with a local game developer, to see what it would be like to develop a game that was more narrative than most games still are, that worked a little more like a movie or even more like a novel. But I think the resources required to do that now are enormous and the competition is pretty fierce. So unless you're really serious about it and that's really what you want to do, I don't think you can just dip your toe into it -- let's put it that way.

You've done commentary for the DVD release of many of your films. Do you enjoy doing commentary, or at least find a certain satisfaction in it?

It's kind of agonizing in a way because it's like remaking or reliving the movie. I don't really enjoy it, but when I do it, I try to really do it. I don't plan it, I don't structure it, I watch the movie and I just free associate. But within that free association there are pragmatic things that come up, how a scene might have been shot or structured, as well as intellectual things and psychological things and all of that. So for me, it's a very intense thing to do, a commentary. I don't laugh and giggle my way through it, the way we've heard some commentaries. I really try to get heavy and deep, so that it's really worthwhile. But the end result is that it's very exhausting. It's like performance art, in a way.

For what it's worth, I think your commentary tracks are among the very best I've ever heard on DVD, especially how they create a complete portrait of filmmaking, from the conceptual to the practical.

I've heard that a lot, especially from film students and of course film enthusiasts as well. And I figured that there really should be some purpose to a commentary other than just to say that you've done a commentary. So I've tried to do that. I'm glad to hear that you feel I've achieved that.

How do you feel about all these supplements on DVDs, the deleted scenes and interviews and behind-the-scenes footage and commentary, as a way to help the viewer connect with the film on a deeper level or explore the creative process?

It's an interesting phenomenon, the whole behind-the-scenes thing. If you think of literature, only Ph.D. students generally read about what the writer was going through when he wrote his novel. This is kind of unique to film, I think, and it comes from genuine enthusiasm of people who love film. And there's a sort of celebrity element to it as well. To see your favorite actor on the set between takes is kind of an intriguing thing. So it's unusual. I could easily see the reason why somebody like David Lynch, for example, will not do commentary, because he thinks that isn't the work of art and that, if you spend a lot of time explaining how the trick is done, it takes away some of the magic. But I myself feel that if the magic is really strong it won't hurt your movie to have people understand what went on behind the scenes.

I've actually found it useful in a professional way, oddly enough. I said to Naomi Watts, "If you want to see what it would be like to be on a set with me, watch the making-of [on "A History of Violence"] and you'll get a very good idea of how I run the set and what the tone is and what I do." It's a good shorthand.

Sound off: Comment on this story | Features archive

Sean Axmaker is a film critic for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and a DVD columnist for MSN Entertainment, and a contributing writer to GreenCine.com, Turner Classic Movies Online, and Asian Cult Cinema, among other publications.