So last week I picked up The Cabin in the Woods on DVD, all excited not only to see the movie again but also to check out the special features on the disc. With a movie like this, and with the creators involved, I figured the extras would be tons of fun and super-informative. Feature-length commentaries are probably my favorite kind of DVD special feature, so I was stoked that both director/writer Drew Goddard and producer/writer Joss Whedon did a commentary for The Cabin in the Woods.
Problem was,
their commentary sucked. It was god-awful terrible. They didn't talk about a goshdarn important thing and I was insanely pissed off the whole time I was listening to it. It was basically Goddard and Whedon (sorry to be crude) jerking each other off the whole time and then occasionally talking about what was on screen. No explanation or discussion about how they even came up with the concept for such an inventive movie, no talking about all the monsters in the cubes (which is still kinda hard to see on my smallish TV), no nothing that I wanted to hear about. Such a huge freaking disappointment - I really thought Joss would give me something better.
Is it really so much to ask for to have some features that actually, you know, add to the experience of the movie and stuff? If you're like me, you not only love movies, but you're also interested in the whole movie-making process. I want to know how the effects were achieved, I want to know about any fun incidents on set, the casting process, the production process, the editing process... I love that shit. When DVDs first came out (gosh, how old am I going to feel when I tell younger people that I was around when DVDs were invented?), the promise of getting to see all that behind-the-scenes stuff along with the movie was the thing that I was most excited about.
And while many DVDs have sometimes exceeded my expectations in terms of the extras (heck, my Gone with the Wind collection has four discs), I have been disappointed many a time by others. Who thinks that they can just slap on a 5 minute featurette, a ridiculous poster gallery, and a trailer and think I'll be satisfied with the DVD? Because I won't be satisfied, and in fact, I will feel very, very cheated. I don't know what goes into the whole DVD-feature-selecting-and-making process and I don't care. I don't care if you have to release the DVD a few months later to actually make it worthwhile. Have somebody film behind-the-scenes stuff during pre-production, production, and post-production and make something interesting out of all of it later. Check out what people are saying in reviews and stuff after the movie is released, and use that in commentaries and whatnot to answer any of their questions. It's a DVD! You have the disc space to fill it with tons of interesting tidbits, so goshdarnit, MAKE IT SO!
Anyway, this topic got me thinking about all the features on some of my DVDs that I have loved, and not just the usual stuff like commentaries and making-of featurettes, but those things that filmmakers put on the discs that are a little "extra" special. Here's just a handful of them:
Sin City (2005)
The All Green Screen Version
Robert Rodriguez is known to have lots of awesome features on almost all of his DVDs (though he seems to have really neglected The Faculty... hint hint, Robert) - the 15-minute film schools, the cooking segments - and to me this is by far the best one. This feature is the entire movie's raw footage in front of the green screen, and shows the viewer just how much work still had to be done after everything was shot. The footage is sped up so it takes less than 10 minutes to get through the whole movie, and it is very interesting to watch and see just how minimal all the sets are and stuff. Awesome!
Halloween (2007)
Michael Lives: The Making of Halloween Documentary
Rob Zombie's The Devil's Rejects also has a great making-of documentary that goes through almost day by day what was going on on the set, but this documentary goes way beyond that. Get this: it is freaking 4 and a half hours long. Yes, I have watched it more than once, and I love it. For those who have a fascination with filmmaking and how things are done... this won't really teach you much of anything, but behind-the-scenes stuff are always interesting to me and this feature certainly has plenty of that.
Shaun of the Dead (2004)
Edgar and Simon's Flip Chart
Okay, this picture is obviously of a different flip chart for a different movie (a possible third film from the duo). The flip chart they did for Shaun of the Dead was a pre-script version of the movie, and in the feature they go through most of the pages, sometimes making non-related jokes, but mostly they do a good job of showing all their initial ideas for the movie and how much thought actually went into the final draft. I think this is a good inspiration for anybody out there making a movie and shows a great way to get it done and put all your thoughts on (really big) paper.
Another great feature on this disc is the animated "Plot Hole Explanations."
I Spit on Your Grave (1978)
Feature-Length Commentary by Joe Bob Briggs
To any horror fan that doesn't really know how to feel about the 1978 rape-revenge movie I Spit on Your Grave, I will always recommend that they watch the movie with the commentary recorded by drive-in guru Joe Bob Briggs, found on the Millennium Edition DVD. I can't watch the movie without his commentary on. He uses his trademark wit to make the commentary interesting, but he also has some really insightful things to say about the movie, things that made me look at the movie in a different way.
Reservoir Dogs (1992)
Reservoir Dolls
Found on the 15th Anniversary Edition DVD, this short but amusing feature always makes me smile. I don't know who created it and I wish I did. Using the Reservoir Dogs action figures for Mr. Blonde and the cop Marvin Nash, they act out the ear-cutting torture scene frame by frame, with a little inset of the actual scene playing at the top of the screen. They even made a little set to look like the warehouse. Very cute feature and a nice bonus for fans of the movie.
What say you?! Been disappointed by some of your DVDs? Have any favorite special features that you'd like to share? Tell me!
Lon Chaney, Jr. plays Larry Talbot, a man who returns home to his estranged father after the death of his brother. He meets up with a local girl named Gwen who works in an antique store, and they and her friend Jenny go to get their fortunes told by a traveling gypsy camp one night. Jenny is attacked in the woods by a wolf and Larry manages to kill it, but he is bitten on the chest. An old gypsy woman tells him that the wolf was actually Bela, the fortune teller, and that he was a werewolf. Larry starts to transform at night and roam the woods as a wolf, terrified of what he's become and what he's going to do, especially now that the police are out hunting him.
I loves me some Lon Chaney Jr. here. I first saw him in the incredible cult classic Spider Baby but he wasn't as much of a standout in that movie. In The Wolf Man, Chaney really gets to shine as a charming, if not emotionally distant, sort-of playboy who suddenly has to deal with the horrible situation of his transformation into a monster. Chaney shows the character's true agony over the fact that he murdered Bela and later the gravedigger Richardson, and by the end he even wants the hunting party to catch him because he is afraid that he will hurt Gwen. Chaney's physical presence is also quite striking, as he towers over most of the actors, plus I just love his face. When he goes all wild in the woods in one scene, he gives the most incredible facial expressions. His physicality as the Wolf Man is obvious yet it works for the movie, and he gives the audience yet another Universal monster who is sympathetic and endearing. 
But Chaney's not the only star in this flick. If you count Chaney himself as the Wolf Man, we've got three, count 'em, three classic monsters in one little movie. Claude Rains, whom I fell in love with as the Invisible Man, plays Larry's father Sir John Talbot. The great Bela Lugosi, a.k.a. Dracula, plays the gypsy fortune teller Bela (coincidence or homage? I can't decide) who is the werewolf that bites Larry. Lugosi's time on screen is short-lived, but Rains give a wonderful supporting performance. He loves his son and wants to protect and help him, yet his book-smart personality refuses to allow him to believe that Larry has become a werewolf. Of course this turns out to be a fatal mistake, revealed in a very heart-breaking and surprising ending.
Now for the not-so-awesome parts of the movie. I know that the werewolf makeup must have taken hours and was probably pretty damn uncomfortable for Chaney, but come on. He doesn't look anything like a wolf. He just looks like one of those really hairy dudes that I saw on Ripley's Believe It or Not that one time. And while we're on this, I got a question. Why did they show the werewolf Bela as actually looking like a wolf when Larry killed him and then have Larry's transformation be so much different? What, was this just he first stage of werewolf-ism or something? It doesn't make sense. Okay, so I didn't like the overall look of the werewolf. Sue me.
I also didn't like the set in the woods. It's the same patch of fake-looking woods and trees used over and over again throughout the movie and it's just campy. That forced, perpetual fog? There are other ways to make the woods look "spooky," I'm pretty sure. They do a great job on lighting Larry as the wolf while he's in these woods, though. Several good shots of him in full makeup looking through the trees and stuff. I have this weird hatred of wood or forest settings that are obviously done on stages. In some movies, I'm shocked to find out that certain scenes like this were actually not on location, but with others I can usually tell right away that those woods are not real, and it takes me out of it for a second. 
Another thing I can't let go about this movie is the strange and creepy hookup of Larry and Gwen. I mean, seriously. He charms her into going out with him by admitting that he spied on her in her room through his daddy's high-powered telescope? And she never really acts like that's just a little bit weird? Anyway, all is forgiven pretty quickly and Gwen and Larry actually turn out to be quite cute together so I guess they do have some chemistry. I love how she messes with him by bringing her friend along to what he thinks is going to be their first date. She's also a playa, because she's engaged to this other dude while she's running off with Larry. I like that about her.
One of the most obvious reasons for the film's longevity is the portrayal of Dracula by Lugosi. Watching the movie now in 2012, I still love almost everything that he does with the role. Lugosi's slow movement, mannerisms, and speech created a character that was charming and mysterious. With one eyebrow almost constantly raised and a crooked, cruel smile, Lugosi commands his presence whenever he is on screen, with every facial movement and hand gesture having a purpose. In this way, Lugosi was quite revolutionary in portraying the vampire, a monster that for all purposes looks and acts human, but is really not. They are still, simply, monsters who feed on the lifeblood of humans. They don't know how to act truly human themselves. Lugosi's speech pattern is often imitated or made fun of these days, with his accent, careful pronunciation, and pauses ("I never drink... wine," "We will leave... tomorrrrrrow eve...ning...") and I have to admit that I found myself smiling as well almost every time he opened his mouth, but I think it was a brilliant choice for this role. 
For me, though, the real scene stealer of the movie is Dwight Frye as Renfield. I had completely forgotten about this wonderfully creepy performance from the first time I saw Dracula many years ago. Renfield is the character who leads the audience to Castle Dracula in the beginning of the movie where he is then put under the Count's spell. Dracula uses him to help him travel to England by ship, and when Renfield is discovered as the last "surviving" person aboard, he is mad. That shot of Renfield looking up and laughing that insanely weird laugh is still very chilling and effective, as is the shot of him crawling on the floor toward the maid after she's fainted. Like Lugosi, Frye also created an iconic character that is sadly not as recognized as it should be. His plastered-on crazy face and the conviction that he puts into each one of his lines completely sells the character and is a great juxtaposition to the Renfield in earlier scenes.
Most of the story centers around Dr. Seward, who runs the sanitarium where Renfield is placed after being found on the ship; his daughter Mina and her fiance John Harker; and Professor Van Helsing, who has knowledge of vampires and is able to see Dracula for what he is. Dracula focuses on Mina for his vampire-making seduction game, coming to visit her several times in the night. This is probably where the romanticism of vampires originated - not just biting a person and making them a vampire, but slowing getting them under their thrall and attacking them in their beds, which has obvious sexual undertones. The one scene where the character of Mina really shines is when it is revealed that she has been made into a vampire. It's a slow reveal, and you almost don't really notice what is happening until Mina starts to look very lustfully at John, or at least at his neck. 
You almost can't compete with the sets on this film. Dracula's castle is just as it should be, huge and gothic and perched precariously on a cliff with only one road leading up to it. The castle is deliciously old and decrepit, with crumbling and broken concrete, and cobwebs everywhere (love that huge spider web on the staircase). The monstrous staircase at Carfax Abbey is also iconic, as is the basement that holds the coffins for Dracula and his wives. Director Tod Browning makes perfect use of wide shots in these locations to really show them off and add to the gothic nature of the film. I only wished that there more scenes in other parts of the castle, as we only get a limited view of what is surely a grandiose beauty of architecture. 
Certain camera and editing tricks are used effectively in some scenes that I really loved. Love the part at the beginning where Dracula somehow walks through the large spider web covering his staircase without disturbing it. The well-known trick of identifying a vampire by the fact that he casts no reflection in mirrors is stumbled upon by Van Helsing, when John opens a little chest with a mirror in it and Van Helsing sees that Dracula is not there. The camera also teases the viewer by cutting away or dissolving at the moments right before Dracula bites a victim. Being 1931, I'm sure that actually showing the act would have been a huge no-no. But here, it works. It adds to the mystery of the vampire that all his dark deeds are done in secret, and all his charm would be taken away if he was shown feeding like an animal on a victim. Plus, it would have been a very sexual scene indeed, a part of the vampire lore that would be explored in later movies.
