It might be just me but does it seem like Susan Stroman prepared a script for the commentary? If this is the case does anyone know why? I was just excited to hear about stories and stuff from the set and all she gave was this scripted reading of something she prepared which really gave vey little insight. Any opinions?
Updated On: 7/9/06 at 12:18 PM
I didn't find it at all odd. I enjoyed it. I wasn't expecting anything from it. I did want more Nathan & Matthew input/stories from them/about them, though Didn't seem scripted to me, just conservative.
Opps... I also would have loved more footage of them on stage somewhere on the DVD.
maybe it was just me ... i dont know that ive ever heard stro talk so maybe im just not used to the way she talks
Stro is VERY shy and quiet. She doesn't really like to do the "press thing." Check out she and Nathan & Matthew on THE ACTORS STUDIO.
It is a VERY bizzare commentary track. I don't mean that as an insult to her at all, it just seemed very stilted and scripted and most of it was just telling you what was going on in the movie.
I found it so odd.
It wasnt just the way she said it, but the way she wrote the dialogue. It sounded like 'book on tape.'
There was no, "that was a fun shoot day, nathan said to me..." it was more like... "On a cold sunday morning at the studio, I clenched my coffee so tight as to absorb the warmth. What a marvelous day in this business we call show, I thought. I recall Nathan with his tuxedo on, he approached me and spoke those 3 magical words, I will never forget..."
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/21/06
That was the most boring commentary I've ever heard. Her voice was monotonous throughout. I enjoyed the movie despite its over theatricality but I couldn't even finish listening to the commentary track.
Mateo - you read my mind...
It was kind of offputing and i couldnt really watch it for long.
We do a lot of DVD commentaries where I work, and some people come in cold, and some bring extensive notes. Others require a lot of prompting via content producers.
ALL commentary tracks go through editorial after the recording sessions, though.
We didn't do "The Producers" commentary, however, so I'm not sure how "prepared" Stro was for it. She easily could have brought in her own notes, though. Many directors do (and film historians too). Actors... not as much.
EDIT: A lot of it has to do with how nervous they are when they do their session.
she didnt have notes, she had the ENTIRE thing written down....it bothered me and it was quite awkward
SCRIPT
SUSAN: HI, MY NAME IS SUSAN STROMAN, AND WELCOME TO THE PRODUCERS COMMENTARY. I AM VERY EXCITED....you get the idea
oh yeh, we're not talking bullet points here... we're talking Producers "The Book."
"And in this scene, Rodger DeBris, the wonderful Gary Beach, is playing Hitler. Hiter was an awful dictator that ruled Germany in through the 30s and 40s. Mel Brooks had quite a good time spoofing him. In fact, he expanded his original song from the 1968 comedy. And there is the audience. And there's Nathan and Matthew, the stars, laughing."
It was scripted, boring and pretty funny. Geez, most of us can see what's going on in the film.
Yeah, I have to agree with almost everyone else. I thought the commentary was very weird to say the least and it came across as very robotic and there was no life in it at all.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/30/04
Mateo, your commentary was halarious! I loved it!
It's funny, because she seemd like such an interesting, insightful lady when she was being interviewed for Broadway: The American Musical. I mean, she wasn't in it very much, but if the commentary had been like that, it would have been terrific!
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/27/05
Well, it's Susan Stroman, what did you expect? Jerome Robbins?
Winthrop Paroo
River City, Iowa
I'm able to ignore her droning voice due to some tidbits that were scattered throughout the movie. But, it's unfortunate Mel couldn't have joined in. Now that would've been a riot!
Videos