University Film & Video Association, University of Illinois Press Journal of Film and Video

The Cinephilic Pleasures of DVD Commentary: Watching The Passenger (1975) with Jack
Nicholson
Author(s): Scott Balcerzak
Source: Journal of Film and Video, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Spring 2014), pp. 21-38
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the University Film & Video
Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jfilmvideo.66.1.0021
Accessed: 22-09-2016 23:26 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
University Film & Video Association, University of Illinois Press are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Film and Video
This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Thu, 22 Sep 2016 23:26:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Cinephilic Pleasures of DVD Commentary:
Watching The Passenger (1975) with Jack Nicholson
scott balcerzak
We’re rolling now, so . . . I suppose the thing about an interlinear to this picture should
be about Michelangelo Antonioni. In this period they had what they called the “art film.”
We first became aware of Antonioni with a picture called L’avventura. And this picture,
The Passenger, was probably the biggest adventure in filming that I ever had in my life.
—Jack Nicholson, commentary track for The Passenger
with the preceding words, jack nich- oscillates between fleeting memories of the
olson begins his commentary track for the production and an appreciative cinephilic com-
2006 DVD release of Michelangelo Antonioni’s mentary that unabashedly celebrates Antonioni
The Passenger (1975). The words are enough as one of Nicholson’s filmmaking heroes. As
to create a powerful tinge of cinephilic excite- suggested by Nicholson’s characterization of
ment. Here is the most iconic male star to the “art film,” the commentary also often takes
emerge from 1970s Hollywood sitting down on an educational tone, with the famous voice
without an interviewer to narrate a film from informing the viewer of the legendary auteur’s
one of the most enigmatic directors of the thematic and aesthetic preoccupations.
twentieth century. Since he rarely does inter- Despite these promises, in many regards,
views, the relaxed attitude of the famous man listening to the track can be characterized as a
with the famous voice at first startled me since frustrating experience, especially when Nich-
it is unaccompanied by the dramatic layers of olson allows for long lulls in his commentary.
performance that I have come to expect from Also, for fans of the actor, he does not give
the actor. Instead, with casual ease, Nichol- many concrete insights into his performance
son simply muses on a then thirty-year-old choices. Instead, he stays true to his originally
film—with (seemingly) no notes and no recent stated intention of celebrating Antonioni, often
viewing to refresh his memory. (Whether these veering into pseudo-philosophical readings
two impressions are true matters little since, of the visuals and the narrative as indicative
as the viewer, it feels like an impromptu view- of the interpretive ambiguities characteristic
ing by Nicholson.) As his first words imply, this of the director. If one is looking for a detailed
commentary does not consist of an actor sim- exposé on how it was to work with one of the
ply relaying behind-the-scenes stories about biggest names in midcentury art cinema, this
the filming. Instead, this peculiar narration commentary would not be the best choice. Yet
despite these shortcomings, there is something
scott balcerzak is an assistant professor of remarkably pleasurable about listening to the
film and literature in the Department of English track. This enjoyment is partly based in the
at Northern Illinois University. He is the author illusion of sitting down next to a megastar such
of Buffoon Men: Classic Hollywood Comedians as “Jack” and hearing his insights—playing out
and Queered Masculinity (Wayne State University
a movie geek’s dream of visiting the actor’s
Press, 2013) and the coeditor of Cinephilia in the
Age of Digital Reproduction: Film, Pleasure, and home and listening to him ramble on about his
Digital Culture, volumes 1 and 2 (Wallflower Press, long career. But beyond this cinephilic fantasy,
2009, 2012). which is fleeting at best, there is something
journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014 21

©2014 by the board of trustees of the university of illinois
more profound involved in hearing the famous Characteristic of the filmmaker, Antonioni
voice over the visual poetry of Antonioni, some- presents this story through a dispassionate
thing innately tied to the enigmatic images we distance that leaves much open to speculation.
see unfold onscreen. He explained in an interview upon the film’s
Of course, the original film without the com- release, “Objectivity is one of the themes of
mentary track is already a worthy object of the film. If you look closely, there are two docu-
fascination—a complex filmic interplay between mentaries in the film, Locke’s documentary on
different perceptions of reality and identity Africa and mine on him” (Dembry and Sturhahn
that ranks among the auteur’s greatest works. 106). With this approach, The Passenger, like
Similar to Antonioni’s other “art film” classics— most of Antonioni’s films, is less concerned
such as L’avventura (1960), L’eclisse (1962), with simple storytelling than with expressing
and Blow-Up (1966)—The Passenger defines something inexplicable about identity. With
itself by narrative and thematic ambiguities, at this ambiguity of character and action, Anto-
least compared to the formal definitions of clas- nioni’s focus on objectivity especially appears
sical cinema. In the film, documentary reporter through our lack of identification with the pro-
David Locke (Nicholson, in easily the most tagonist. As Seymour Chatman suggests, “An-
passive performance of his career), for reasons tonioni is clearly more interested in conveying
never fully explained, trades his identity with the sheer experience of an exchange of identity
that of another man who resembles him and and the liberation of death than in account-
who died in an adjacent hotel room in a small ing for aspects of the character’s background
African village. Taking the dead man’s passport that provoke the need for such an experience”
and appointment book, Locke—now as David (Antonioni 189). Sam Rohdie would later note
Robertson—follows his new identity’s schedule that this distance makes the character of Locke
only to discover Robertson was a gunrunner serve more as a detached outsider to his own
for African soldiers. While attempting to stay adventure, and as such the “entire film has a
ahead of his wife’s (Jenny Runarce) own inves- sense of estrangement, of a great distance be-
tigation into Robertson, Locke meets a young tween its events and their observation” (142).1
woman (Maria Schneider) who encourages him Despite the numerous analytical possibilities
to follow the dead man’s scheduled appoint- inherent to such an important film, this article
ments throughout Europe. Ultimately, without forgoes my initial viewing and appreciation for
ever fully understanding the nature of his new The Passenger as a source of inspiration (or
existence, Locke is murdered in his hotel room frustration). Instead, I will consider the film
in a small Spanish town. only in the context of a paratextual relation-
Figure 1: Jack Nichol-

son gives an unusu-
ally passive per-
formance as David
Locke in Michelan-
gelo Antonioni’s The
Passenger (1975)
22 journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014

ship to the Jack Nicholson commentary track. tive cinematic images yet never proves truly
Although the pleasure of listening to this DVD intrusive. The conception that the commentary
extra is undoubtedly related to my pleasure in intrudes on the original text having been dis-
watching the unaccompanied film, the goal of carded, the second level of viewer engagement
this article is to understand the commentary creates an experience more intrinsic to the
as a textual construct worthy of study in itself. hegemonic nature of the cinematic image. Here,
In what follows, I consider the track not only as the listening and viewing experiences merge
an industry phenomenon (a marketing gimmick and exist as a track/image convergence, which
targeted at a new generation of cinephiles) but creates a new text that appeals to multiple
also as something personally affective as a types of reception. This convergence can best
listening and viewing experience. In this regard, be understood through previous theoretical ap-
this particular track becomes a fitting model for proaches to viewership as processing different
discussing the nature of DVD commentary itself heterogeneous elements of cinema—in particu-
as paratext—since it proves light on behind- lar, the theories of Kristin Thompson, Christian
the-scenes information and thereby finds Metz, and Gilles Deleuze.
different ways to engage an art film that can So we are now faced with a key question in
best be understood as a form of pure cinema. digital-age cinephilia: How can we approach
Nicholson provides an elemental commentary commentary’s appeal as both removed from
over the elemental appeals of The Passenger, and interrelated to the materiality of film? The
removing the viewing/listening experience from commentary track is something that now pro-
the trivial. With this, I mean to suggest not that foundly defines the twenty-first-century cine-
other DVD commentaries are lesser, but simply phile’s relationship with film and therefore is
that the Nicholson track does not give much worthy of consideration as a text unto itself. But
production trivia, and the film itself is not inter- before we consider Nicholson’s track as text,
ested in the trivial concerns common to classi- the DVD commentary needs to be fully under-
cal narrative cinema. stood as an industry phenomenon marketed to
This article thereby considers how the com- a relatively new form of cinephile.
mentary track contains appeals beyond the
informational, engaging two sources of enjoy- The Postmillennial Cinephile
ment for the viewer: (1) an appreciation of the as Consumer
commentary as an independent vocal perfor-
mance and (2) a more intrinsic pleasure based The option of listening to somebody talk over
in how the commentary resituates the cinematic a film grew in popularity in the last thirty years
text as time-image, creating a convergence of of cinema’s hundred-plus-year history as home
film and commentary. In this first level of enjoy- video technologies changed the industry. Intro-
ment, Nicholson’s role as a movie star in direct duced in 1984 by the Criterion Collection (then
engagement with Antonioni’s visual poetry still part of the Voyager Company), commentary
provides a paratextual relationship different tracks were included on laser discs, appearing
from Nicholson’s other DVD commentaries for first with Ronald Haver’s commentary for King
more traditional Hollywood products—James L. Kong (1933). As DVDs rose in popularity dur-
Brooks’s As Good as It Gets (1997) and Nancy ing the 1990s, so did commentaries on classic
Meyers’s Something’s Gotta Give (2003). With and new releases—often included on discs
his commentary for The Passenger, Nicholson’s along with an ever-expanding litany of “special
cachet as a movie star blends with his apprecia- features” such as deleted scenes, making-of
tion of Antonioni as a philosophical artist. As documentaries, exclusive or vintage inter-
such, the independent performance of Nichol- views, photographic essays, written essays,
son’s voice gives an engrossing reframing of and numerous other additions appealing to
the text that is independent of the contempla- the emerging film-collector market that craved

behind-the-scenes information (Bertellini and United States, that form of cine-love consisted
Reich 104). Barbara Klinger suggests that these of searching out the works of European auteurs
appeals to film ownership are a primary way such as Antonioni (and Truffaut, Fellini, Berg-
the industry creates a financially fruitful inter- man, Renais, and others) at art house theaters.
play with fans, through providing behind-the- This practice defined the kind of viewing that
scenes trivia as “a major form of currency that Susan Sontag lamented as essentially dead
helps to build relationships not simply among in her famous mid-1990s piece “The Decay
fans but also between fans and media produc- of Cinema,” where she suggests the “love of
ers and promoters” (74). With disc technol- cinema has waned” (61). As a counter to Son-
ogy now providing new and improved crisper tag’s lament, the rise of DVD viewing in the
images via Blue-ray, it is important to note late 1990s and early 2000s created obsessive
that the commentary track remains a defining connoisseurs as well, but of a different sort,
“special feature.” Despite changes in technol- more aligned to the world of fandom. In 2005,
ogy, the industry clearly views the commentary Thomas Elsaesser declared this shift “cine-
as a powerful currency needed to appeal to philia take two,” which notably split a new sec-
modern cinephiles, an ever-expanding market ond generation of cinephilia into the “academic
that could possibly be resistant to the instant- curriculum,” with its faith in “auteur cinema,”
streaming revolution promised by Netflix, Hulu, and the fans defined by “the new technologies
Amazon, and other online services. such as DVDs and the Internet,” who find “com-
With this in mind, I fully acknowledge my munities and shared experiences” through
role as a consumer in the industry’s market- forms of textual poaching (36).2 As this “take
ing to modern cinephiles—knowing well that two” suggests, post-DVD cinephilia is often
the media companies feed on my obsessions. viewed as somewhat dichotomous, defined by
Sony Pictures Classics, which rereleased The leftovers from previous generations of film fans
Passenger in theaters in 2005, packaged its (as seen in university film studies departments)
disc to include at least two cinephile-friendly and by interactive worlds of fandom—where
commentary tracks: Nicholson’s and a dual cinephilia is, at best, one of multiple interac-
track by journalist Aurora Irvine and screen- tions between consumers of media.
writer Mark Peploe. Yet even these features did In previous discussions concerning DVD
not feel sufficient to me upon my purchase of commentary, this transitional moment between
the DVD, since there were no Criterion-style a previous generation and a digital era “take
documentaries, historical news reports, or a two” can be seen in notable ways. In 2005,
collectable booklet. As a cinephile consumer, I noting trends in popular tracks, Aaron Barlow
wanted more. As my desire for a more inclusive foresaw their evolution and split into “three
ownership of The Passenger illustrates, the distinct (and clearly identified) forms”:
proliferation of home viewing changed the di-
rection of cinephilia in a significant way, mark- First will be the “popular” commentary,
ing a deviation from the ritualistic viewing hab- meant for the fan of a specific film, its cast,
and director. These will probably be anec-
its of film connoisseurs of the mid-twentieth
dotal in nature, breezy, and fun. The last will
century, for whom cinema existed mainly as a
be the “academic” commentary, a vetted,
theater-going ritual.
significant contribution to scholarship sur-
Home viewership—where one can easily rounding the film. Between these will be the
re-watch and own cinema—is often character- more careful director’s commentaries and
ized as a lesser form of aesthetic appreciation those by film critics and historians outside of
than what was found in previous generations academia. (126)
of cinephilia, which were defined by the “art
cinema” of the 1950s and 60s mentioned by These parameters defined, in essence, how
Nicholson at the start of his commentary. In the many consumers already approached the DVD

commentary by 2005 and certainly still define the curious fitness of this recrudescence of the
the extra feature in today’s market. They also present moment” (15). Conceptually, the audio
expose a view of cinematic discourse defined tracks are digital-age phenomena embracing
by a perceived generational shift. With the the complexities of multi-track media technol-
“first” and “last” categories of popular and ogy to resituate the text—in this sense, a fitting
academic commentaries, Barlow’s definition illustration of the possibilities of cinephilia
reflects the dichotomous view of postmillen- “take two.” As Elsaesser points out about DVD-
nial cinephilia—the differentiation between and Internet-era cinephilia, the new generation
fans and “academic-minded” cinephiles that of fans embraces a “re-framing, referring to the
Elsaesser uses to characterize “take two.” Yet conceptual frame, the emotional frame, as well
the dichotomy shows its limitations within as the temporal frame” through technologi-
Barlow’s middle ground of “more careful” com- cal innovation (38). Given that it began nearly
mentaries by directors and non-academic crit- thirty years ago on laser discs, the commentary
ics and historians. Such commentaries reflect a track was one of the earliest forms of this digital
cinema culture distinguishing itself from former “re-framing,” adding a retrospective new in-
generations of cinephilia while also embracing sight to the cinematic text through actual verbal
some of the previous obsessions. As Giorgio commentary, which the consumer can embrace
Bertellini and Jacqueline Reich write, there is a or reject. In many ways, it was the prototype of
marketing balance that production companies the larger “take two” movement of cinephilia
must attempt to keep when producing com- that would only expand as the Internet grew.
mentaries: “the contributor generally reveals Oddly, although commentaries are a defi-
the desire for an established authorial or a bal- nite form of digital-age reframing, the content
anced critical competence capable of attracting of most commentaries is firmly rooted in the
an audience of cinephiles, or an added ‘plus’ definitions of cinephilia “take one” and its
for the average consumer, which in turn leads love of the auteur. Even Nicholson—whose
to multiple viewings” (104). The most desir- reflections for The Passenger, as I will show,
able commentary from a marketing standpoint defy much of the trivia-based content of other
would thus float between the “academic” and commentaries—suggests at the outset that he
the “fan” to attract the widest categorization of will provide a celebration of Antonioni. The focus
cinephile possible, by providing the most all- on auteur was key to the midcentury art film
inclusive trivia possible. form of cinephilia, a fact that allowed directors
The commentary track thereby proves to be such as the great Italian “maestro” (as Nich-
a transitional media text in that it reaffirms the olson later calls Antonioni) to be embraced as
cinephilic obsessions of previous generations critical objects of adoration. Most commentary
while simultaneously using digital technol- tracks also embrace this concept of the auteur,
ogy to recontextualize film itself as an artifact. though, one could argue, often by refocusing it
As Deborah Parker and Mark Parker suggest, as something specifically market-driven. Tak-
through not only extras such as the coming off from Barbara Klinger’s characterization
mentary but also the “cleaning” of film prints of consumer film culture creating “[a]uteur
through digitization, the “DVD edition is es- machines,” Catherine Grant contends that the
sentially a reorientation of the film, often car- DVD itself “potentially engender[s] different,
ried out by a variety of agents, and subject to more comprehensive forms of auteurism than
a wide variety of choices made by the eventual were previously possible” (103). Although com-
viewer” (14). As a result, the commentary is one mentaries can highlight major figures such as
of the most powerful forms of reorientation in Antonioni who were embraced by previous gen-
an aesthetic sense, as it gives new prominence erations of cinephiles, Grant argues that such
“to questions of intention, both directorial and practices have also resulted in the “‘production’
cinematographical, and . . . speculate[s] on of auteurs” by celebrating “commercially- and

c ritically-defined ‘significant directors,’ where philia and the resulting marketing strategies,
before not all would have been construed as let us now examine the first level of textual
discursively or commercially necessary” (103). engagement I designate as defining my enjoy-
To Grant, this is a marketing phenomenon that ment of Nicholson’s commentary. As I embrace
appears in the tracks by such “directors-for-hire” my appreciation of the actor’s track as an inde-
as Antonie Furqua, who provided a commentary pendent vocal performance, new conflicts make
for the failed blockbuster King Arthur (2004). themselves known. These disjunctions illumi-
Such a push shows an industry willing to re- nate not only the postmillennial DVD owner’s
frame cinema through force-fitting a previous role within the movements of cinephilia but
generation’s classifications of auteurism onto also the various forms of viewer reception in-
films and artists who would have been critically volved in watching The Passenger.
rejected in previous decades. In such concep-
tions of marketed cinephilic trivia, we can note Commentary as Independent
that the commentary track often embodies a Vocal Performance
conflicted status as a cultural artifact, where the
tensions of previous definitions of cinema and In the commentary for The Passenger, the un-
new generations struggle to reconcile in search mistakable sound of megastar Jack Nicholson’s
of a financially viable film collector market. voice does undoubtedly provide an appeal and
As all the aforementioned marketing strate- is probably the reason I initially chose to listen
gies show, as the interplay between viewers to his commentary over Irvine and Peploe’s
and production companies grows closer, the track, despite the latter commentary’s fuller an-
critical differentiations often afforded to types ecdotal value. Whereas Irvine and Peploe give
of cinephilia might also warrant reexamination. various fascinating insights into the produc-
If media companies repackage cinema by mar- tion, as stated earlier, Nicholson lulls into long
keting to auteurism, then cinephilia no longer silences and provides little in the way of tan-
exists truly as a rejection of mainstream cinema gible trivia, which, as Klinger suggests, exists
(or as an embrace of “art films”) but exists as as a “major form of currency” in building rela-
something working on multiple conceptions of tionships between fans and media companies
self-identification and representing multiple (74). Instead, Nicholson’s cachet as a movie
forms of pleasure. A conflicted relationship star provides the viewer with a form of currency
with commentary does not suggest that the dig- of another sort, in that fans of the actor actu-
ital-age cinephile does not feel strongly toward ally rarely hear him speak outside of a role as a
certain filmmakers, much like previous genera- fictional character (except perhaps for the occa-
tions. Instead, I suggest that the commentary sional courtside interview at a Los Angeles Lak-
represents a conflicted paratextual relationship ers game). Yet although the star is rarely heard
with cinema (which I will show as being both in interviews, he actually has done other com-
beyond and of the cinematic text) that serves mentaries: one for cowriter and director James
as a complex reengagement with the image. L. Brooks’s As Good as It Gets, another for
The commentary thereby might be the most writer and director Nancy Meyers’s Something’s
logical bridge between two generations of Gotta Give, and a limited commentary for three
cinephilia—marketed to every type of film col- selected scenes for the special features on the
lector regardless of age or cinematic obsession. Region 1 release of Bob Rafelson’s Blood and
It is an extra feature in direct dialogue with the Wine (1996). Although it gives a few interest-
twenty-first-century cinephile regardless of her ing insights into his reluctance at an advanced
or his ascribed categorization—academic, fan, age to do love scenes with younger costars, the
“take one,” or “take two.” latter track is of little interest since the limited
With understanding of these conflicted focus on out-of-context scenes essentially
positions in relationship to movements of cine- classifies it as another type of DVD extra as

opposed to a continuous commentary track, as Meyers sits down with Nicholson for the
which (for at least the purposes of this article) entire length of the movie, and the conversa-
should run the entire length of the film. tion gives multiple insights into the director’s
As true DVD commentaries, the tracks on and actor’s respective and collaborative pro-
Brooks and Meyers’s films present the listener cesses. Charmingly aware of the auteur school
with experiences considerably different from of filmmaking, Nicholson even calls his director
that of just hearing Nicholson’s solo voice “chief” throughout this commentary.
over The Passenger. In a sense, the nature of Each of his contributions on these DVDs
both these tracks speaks more to the “auteur speaks to the natural charm and intelligence
machines” suggested by Klinger and expanded of the actor, who proves an engaging subject
on by Grant. Both comedies could be classi- and much more comfortable watching and com-
fied as works of Hollywood auteurs regardless menting on himself than Keaton. To a cinephile,
of the DVD packaging since Brooks and Mey- though, although listening to Nicholson’s in-
ers both wrote and directed films typical of teractions with his director might be fun, they
their ironically sweet comedic tones—found in prove somehow a lesser experience in com-
such other productions as Brooks’s Broadcast parison to The Passenger, which gives us pure
News (1987) and How Do You Know (2010) and “Jack” without interference. This might be the
Meyers’s What Women Want (2000) and It’s reason the actor never has a clear course of ac-
Complicated (2009). The commentary for As tion in his musings on The Passenger, instead
Good as It Gets positions Brooks as the central following his own stream of consciousness as
creative figure and edits together multiple he watches the playback. Also, Nicholson’s per-
commentaries where the director watched the formance in Antonioni’s film presents a version
film with various collaborators—including Nich- of the movie star that a cinephile might find
olson, actor Helen Hunt, actor Greg Kinnear, more appealing. Whereas Brooks and Meyers’s
editor Richard Marks, producer Laurence Mark, works present the actor in tailor-made late-ca-
and composer Hans Zimmer. The single avail- reer roles playing off the devilish Jack persona
able track is edited together to supposedly in comedic parts, Antonioni’s film reminds
provide the juiciest bits from each of the ses- us of the actor as he existed in the 1970s—a
sions, with, for the most part, the appropriate post–studio system incarnation of a leading
actor commenting on scenes where he or she man with an appreciation of European filmmak-
appears. The commentary for Something’s ing. Nicholson states in a 1985 interview, “As
Gotta Give takes a less hodgepodge approach, an actor, I want to give in to the collaboration
though it highlights once again the director with the director because I don’t want my work
herself as the primary artist behind the produc- to be all the same. . . . That’s why I’ve worked
tion. The first available track features the voice with more European directors than the average
of Meyers with producer Bruce A. Block, with actor has. They somehow understand that this
a limited amount of commentary by actress is where I am coming from” (Walker 305).
Diane Keaton, who shows up to the session at Despite the fact that his other two commen-
the forty-two-minute mark. Meyers suggests taries do not feature this appealing view of the
that this is the first time the actress has seen actor, I must acknowledge there are certain
the finished film, and Keaton seems noticeably pleasures inherent in listening to all these tracks
uncomfortable with the commentary process, regardless of the quality of the film—something
rarely responding to the director’s complimen- related to the power of hearing Jack Nicholson’s
tary statements about her performance. After distinctive voice. A major component of this
what must be a break in the recording session, auditory pleasure undoubtedly is the cult of
Keaton leaves with over thirty minutes left to stardom defining the Nicholson persona. In the
the film. The other commentary track on the commentaries for Brooks and Meyers’s films,
disc provides a more fluid listening experience his popular persona is invoked in multiple ways,

most blatantly when he indulges in his naughty Along with the Nicholson persona, there is a
side by revealing that during a romantic speech pleasure just in hearing his distinctive voice on
in Good he pretended his character had an erec- all these tracks—aged and characterized by a
tion or simply when he consistently comments deep gruff baritone, removed from the original
on younger women who appear onscreen in production yet still actively commenting on
Something. Another aspect of the persona, his the imagery. For example, with The Passenger,
lack of vanity as an actor, appears too when, for Nicholson often veers into related aspects of
example, he describes himself as a “beached the image without necessarily giving any in-
whale” as his character is sprawled out on the sight into Antonioni’s choices or even his views
floor in Something. In The Passenger commen- on them. While watching Schneider’s character
tary, these conceptions of Jack also pop up in board a bus in a small Spanish village late in
some minor yet enjoyably silly ways. While Locke the film, the actor simply lists the elements
moves the body of Robertson onto his bed, in the frame: “bicycles, broken-down cars,
Nicholson shows some of his distinctive self- cave dwellers, beer” (the latter referring to the
deprecation: “My back wouldn’t allow this today, advertisement on the bus). In moments such
I am sure.” We also get some typically glib ob- as these—minimal in substance but oddly af-
servations about his female costars, which take fective simply through the appeal of voice—the
on extra connotations because of the actor’s sound of Nicholson contains a strange power.
famous reputation as a ladies’ man. During a The pleasure of listening is based in the grain
medium shot of Jenny Runarce, Nicholson snick- of the famous voice, the embodied appeal
ers, “One thing that Antonioni had that was also, of certain vocal sounds that can be difficult
really, sort of old-style Hollywood was an eye to define. In The Voice in the Cinema, Michel
for beautiful women. I think you’ll see that in all Chion suggests isolated voices are detached
his films. It’s a theory I agree with him about.” representative entities for audiences:
Later, as he and Maria Schneider’s character are
shown arguing, Nicholson uses the opportunity Isolating the voice as they do, telephone and
to muse about romantic relationships: “Just like radio posit the voice as representative of the
whole person. And a character in a silent film,
a woman, passionate about the cause. [Pause.]
with her animated body and moving lips, ap-
Just like a man, he’s hungry.” These moments
pears as the part of the whole that is a speak-
do play with the biography of the actor, provid-
ing body, and leaves each viewer to imagine
ing extra pleasure for cinephiles by showcasing her voice. So in explicitly depriving us of one
Nicholson’s views on romantic relationships and element, both radio and silent cinema cause
even his own aging body. us to dream of the harmony of the whole. (125)
Figure 2: At this mo-

ment, Nicholson’s com-
mentary simply lists the
elements of the frame:
“bicycles, cars, cave
dwellers, beer.”

Nicholson’s commentary voice as a separated profilmic event, which becomes the tangible
recording removed from the filmic whole story world framed and recorded from without.
thereby can be understood as an embodied This framing and recording tends to be taken as
whole; while seeing the young Nicholson on the the narration itself” (24). The filmic language
screen, the viewer does not associate the voice of the classical Hollywood structure (consisting
with that body. Instead, the commentary is a of all the onscreen elements we traditionally
Nicholson diegetically removed from that world, associate with mise-en-scène) thereby pro-
representing a star persona steeped in the motes onscreen space as story world. Good
listener’s cinephilic knowledge of his career— and Something are films defined by these
similar to listening to a radio interview with the sorts of prescriptive diegetic systems, spaces
famous actor. In this manner, when considering constructed to advance classical narrative. Sur-
the track for The Passenger as a cinephile, I find prisingly, though, an acknowledgement of this
the embodied voice of Nicholson profoundly structure and style defines some of Nicholson’s
important in defining my pleasure. With his best insights into his performance choices.
familiar voice, now removed from performance, For example, a considerable amount of the
his reframing of the film proves independently commentary for Good focuses on Brooks’s
engrossing as opposed to intrusive. struggles over constructing the narrative. In
Yet the appeal of Nicholson’s commentaries one instance, the director tells us how he tried
goes further than simply the familiarity of his to create a logical reason to place the three
voice. As in all his tracks, he is a commentator lead characters in a car together on a road
fascinatingly aware of his role within a larger trip—an arguably hackneyed plot device that,
cinematic system, something that makes his in truth, comes out of nowhere to create more
commentaries engrossing on an intellectual personal conflicts and resolutions. Suggest-
as well as an affective level. Even when he is ing the film could “fall apart” if the audience
commenting on standard Hollywood fare, this sensed “bullshit,” Brooks conveys his struggle
becomes apparent as he deconstructs his role to construct a plausible reason for Nicholson’s
as a leading man within a romantic comedy, a homophobic character to agree to drive his
genre largely defined by the closed narrative homosexual neighbor (Kinnear) to Baltimore.
systems of classical narration. As David Bor- Ultimately, Nicholson tells the listener a rea-
dwell suggests, the “classical Hollywood film sonable resolution was never reached: “We
presents psychologically defined individuals talked about it forever. Finally, I just said, ‘Well,
who struggle to solve a clear-cut problem or to then I don’t need a reason to decide why I am
attain specific goals.” This narrative inevitably suddenly going to drive him. I’ll just decide.’”
concludes “with a decisive victory or defeat, a Moments like this show the actor’s innate un-
resolution of the problem and a clear achieve- derstanding of the audience’s willing suspen-
ment or nonachievement of the goals” (18). sion of disbelief when watching a traditional
Following this model, Good and Something Hollywood narrative. Within the conventions of
provide classical resolutions with their aging the romantic comedy, Nicholson accepts that
“bad boy” (Nicholson) redeeming himself and a realistic psychology for the character is less
getting the “good girl” (Helen Hunt and Diane important than serving the narrative system
Keaton). With these formulaic premises, the of the film, no matter the moment’s overall
films’ visual languages internally promote the implausibility. But beyond an understanding
narrative conflicts and resolutions of a classical of larger narrative issues involved in classical
structure, even within smaller moments that filmmaking, Nicholson seems acutely aware of
might initially feel independent of the larger how the smaller elements of the scene also aid
story. Bordwell writes, “Manipulation of mise- these systems.
en-scène (figure behavior, lighting, setting, This understanding is clearly on display
costume) creates an apparently independent in Nicholson’s commentary with Meyers for

omething, which, for fans of the actor, prob-
S sure people saw it.” He goes on to tell a story
ably gives the most insight into his acting of a performance choice to steal a pack of
process. Throughout the track, he shows a con- cigarettes during a scene in Bob Rafelson’s The
siderable respect for Meyers’s variation on the Postman Always Rings Twice (1981), a move he
Hollywood romantic comedy, calling it “one of had to accentuate by slowly tapping his finger-
the great comedy scripts I ever read” and often nail so that the viewer could see it. Nicholson
deconstructing it as a series of character arcs ends this digression by suggesting, “It seems
and narrative resolutions. For example, early today I am commenting on reality versus what
in the film, as his aging playboy character eats is good for a movie.” Ultimately, throughout the
dinner with his young girlfriend (Amanda Peet), commentary, Nicholson implies moments in his
her mother (Keaton), and her aunt (Francis performance are exaggerated to aid the visual
McDormand), Nicholson analyzes his perfor- system of the classical Hollywood narrative, an
mance choices as aiding not the reality of the acknowledged understanding of the artificiality
scene as much as the narrative system of the needed to promote the story world.
motion picture as a whole: “The story is told by Although Nicholson shows an impressive
the different way in which he responds to the understanding of the actor’s central role in
three women. . . . But you can see his nature, creating classical narratives, Antonioni’s The
although I am not doing much but eating, by Passenger creates decidedly less prescriptive
the difference in how he relates to the other filmic spaces and thereby warrants a different
three characters. He finds her [Keaton’s] nerv sort of commentary. Bordwell writes on how art
ousness amusing. This will pay off in the end.” film contrasts with classical cinema: “Whereas
Often, such a recognition of foreshadowing and art-cinema narration can blur the lines sepa-
other narrative devices results in Nicholson rating objective diegetic reality, characters’
discussing his performance in relationship to mental states, and inserted narrational com-
an acknowledged unreality necessary for classi- mentary, the classical film asks us to assume
cal Hollywood film. In one fascinating moment, clear distinctions among those states” (25). The
as Nicholson walks on the beach with Keaton types of movie moments described previously
and hands her a stone (a prop that will be a key (where Nicholson suggests his gestures are
memento of their relationship), Meyers asks, part of a larger narrative system) cannot always
“How did you know to throw the stone [in the apply when looking at “art-cinema narration”
air] to sort of bring attention to it?” Nicholson since clearly defined distinctions separating
responds, “My key axiom for making movies is diegetic reality from other elements no longer
‘moving pictures move’. . . . I wanted to make appear. One of the clearest places we see this
Figure 3: In the
commentary for
Nancy Meyers’s
Something’s Gotta
Give (2003), Nich-
olson explains his
performance choice
to toss a stone in
the air.

rescriptive presentation subverted is in Mi-
p This rejection of traditional narrative codes is
chelangelo Antonioni’s approach to framing the not only fully recognized by Nicholson but also
actor. The auteur said in a 1962 interview, praised (at least in retrospect) because he finds
this part of Antonioni’s approach fascinating
Inasmuch as I consider an actor as being and indicative of the interruptive open spaces
only one element in a given scene, I regard of art cinema. For example, early in the film,
him as a tree, a wall, or a cloud, that is, as Nicholson watches as his character David Locke
just one element in the overall scene; the
grows increasingly frustrated about his jeep’s
attitude or pose of the actor, as determined
inability to move after being stuck in the sand.
under my direction, cannot but help to ef-
fect [sic] the framing of that scene, and I, As the camera seemingly focuses more on the
not the actor, am the one who can know desert background than on his performance, he
whether that effect is appropriate or not. wistfully recalls the director’s lack of interest in
(qtd. in Brunette 11) actors: “Antonioni, I’ve said often, to him actors
are not the most important thing. They’re sort
As Peter Brunette suggests, this approach to of ‘moving space.’ He’s interested, obviously,
deemphasizing the actor creates a different in environment.’” This concept of the actor as
sort of text that is much less interested in overt “moving space” within the immobile space of
signals of storytelling: “The point is that, de- the surroundings returns again in Nicholson’s
spite appearances, Antonioni’s films are much commentary. Later, as the film moves to Barce-
more formal, graphic experiences, say—almost lona, the actor watches himself as he follows
like animated paintings with characters and Schneider through the distinctive architecture
narrative—than they are typical film stories of Antoni Gaudí on the roof of La Pedrera and
to which the viewer responds by identifying snickers, “Here comes moving space.” Such a
with the characters in all the conventionally clear understanding of his role within the filmic
‘human’ ways” (11). The Passenger is thus not world of Antonioni shows that the actor is aware
a system of narration that corresponds with of his purpose onscreen as another interpretive
the clear classical codes (and acting choices) element as opposed to a central character with
discussed by Nicholson on the Good and a classical narrative purpose.
Something tracks. As such, listening to Nichol- Nicholson’s commentary offers some in-
son’s commentary for Antonioni’s film proves sight into why the actor would feel intrigued
intriguing since he is narrating over his most by such a decentered take on the leading-man
passive performance, one that is often discon- performance. In his exploration of cinematic
nected from the clearly defined narrative codes performance and masculinity, Dennis Bingham
of cinematic acting. suggests that despite some of Nicholson’s
Figure 4: Nicholson’s
commentary over
the scene on the
roof of La Pedrera in
Barcelona, Spain,
characterizes his
presence onscreen
as “moving space.”

self-proclaimed Method techniques, a more While we watch Locke discover the body of
fitting way to consider him (and his masculin- Robertson, the commentary track provides one
ity) onscreen would be through Bertolt Brecht’s of the rare moments where Nicholson recalls
“epic” style of acting and its Verfremdungsef- Antonioni giving explicit direction: “One of
fekt, or “alienation effect,” which presents Michelangelo’s directions on this scene is
traits as symptoms of the character’s social how interesting it is how little people actually
conditioning, which in Nicholson would sug- act at important moments when there is no
gest “a spectacle of masculinism as a set of one to act for.” The actions onscreen certainly
assumptions about mastery and superiority” confirm this psychological insight as Nichol-
(102). As Bingham summarizes, “[a] character’s son’s demeanor seems muted in contrast to
traits are mediated or ‘read,’ in Brecht’s term, how such a scene could appear in another
by the actor, rather than simply ‘portrayed’ by film. Locke calmly goes through Robertson’s
him, emphasizing the character as a social and possessions and locates materials hinting
narrative construct.” In contrast, Method per- at the secret life of the identity he will soon
formance suggests a realist, liberal humanist assume. As his character locates a gun, Nich-
form of subjectivity by the performer, based in olson places the elements of the scene further
Lee Strasberg’s conceptions of sense memories into context: “A reference to guns, so quietly
to empathize with the character. But to Bing- done. No wide angles, just part of a man’s
ham, Nicholson suggests “the awareness of the belongings.” Here, his reflection on acting (or
character as a construction separate from the non-acting) suggests the performance as yet
actor,” something certainly seen in the star’s another element of the language of cinema.
distinctive use of gesture as a performance Nicholson conveys that his primary fascination
choice (101). Without question, this technique with Antonioni is based in something dis-
appears in some of Nicholson’s showier roles tinctly different from most American produc-
such as The Shining (1980) and Terms of En- tions with their overwrought emotionalism,
dearment (1983), as well as late-career perfor- visual codes fully exploited in classical narra-
mances in Good and Something. In these roles, tive spaces such as Good and Something.
gestures typically associated with Jack are Furthermore, the actor notes this approach
emphasized (the wicked smile, the touching of as a key to understanding the film’s overall
his hair, the raising of his distinctive eyebrows). diegetic spaces, the logic behind its total
For example, in the commentary for Something, construction. As suggested by the director,
Nicholson and Meyers maintain a running joke Antonioni’s purpose with The Passenger was
about the actor’s stock reaction of having his to highlight the concept of a reporter and the
“skull pop” (resulting in his charismatic eye- subjective capturing of reality: “I have not tam-
brows arching), about which Jack says, “The pered with reality. I look at it with the same eye
actors in Canada count them.” with which the hero, a reporter, looks at the
But in The Passenger, such gestures are events he is reporting on” (Dembry and Stur-
largely absent as he responds to scenes in a hahn 106). One of the ways the film highlights
subdued manner. In fact, in one sequence, this concept is to interject Locke’s supposed
Nicholson recalls Antonioni dismissing the documentary footage covering an African war
use of gesture as an acting device, telling him, throughout the film, as his wife starts her inves-
“Jack, less twitches.” Although his perfor- tigation into Robertson. One of the most dis-
mance here feels removed from the traditional turbing pieces of this footage breaks through
definitions of Brechtian gesture, one wonders the fictionality of the film to present actual
while listening to the commentary if the actor documentary footage of an execution in Africa.
became fascinated by new ways to create Here, Nicholson discusses the real footage with
the “alienation effect” through performance. a focus on his personal response:

It looks like the ropes wouldn’t hold the
Cinema/Commentary Convergence
man, but nonetheless, this is reality. [He
pauses as the firing squad shoots.] I don’t Although Nicholson’s embodied voice consti-
see any blood caps exploding on his shirt
tutes a major appeal as an independent perfor-
anywhere. But I can tell you the man is
mance, it does not solely define my pleasure
dead. With this being real, you can see why
Antonioni doesn’t believe in all the pyro-
upon listening to the commentary for The Pas-
technical things we see in movies we call senger. As noted previously, I start to recognize
entertainment. something new when the actor engages the
imagery and challenges my own perceptions.
Here, there is no performance requiring ges- This appeal no longer feels removed from the
ture, only the grim reality of the documentary original text as much as it creates a new third
footage. Like most watching the scene (if they converged text. To understand this relationship,
are aware of the footage’s realness), Nicholson we must forgo the questions of narrative and
contrasts its lack of spectacle with the specta- consider how the actor simply engages the im-
cles of death found in other films. It is the lack agery itself while watching The Passenger. It is
of “performance” in this moment that makes it in these moments that an even more profound
perversely compelling to witness. With this, the potential for commentary becomes apparent.
commentary track places the filmic image into a Early in the track, as Nicholson watches
larger context by indicating its textual relation- David Locke grow increasingly frustrated about
ship with performance and reality. Although the his stuck jeep, a scene mentioned previously,
actor’s commentary makes the sequence more he briefly describes a memory from the produc-
disturbing, it also makes its blunt realism all tion experience:
the more affective.
Near the end of the film, continuing his in- I remember [in] this scene that I was so used
sights into the plays with reality and unreality to Antonioni by then, I felt he wanted me to
act too strongly in this particular sequence.
in the text, Nicholson imbues his commentary
And I remember the sandstorm that we had
with more of an explicit philosophical view-
to wait through in order to film it. Michelan-
point, though by posing questions rather than
gelo out ahead of us, specter in the desert.
by providing simple answers. In a scene before It’s, you know, very hard for me to separate
Locke’s murder, the character tells Schneider the experience of making this movie from the
of a blind man who suddenly regained his movie itself. I suppose that’s a good thing.
sight, only to be disgusted by the ugliness of
the world and, ultimately, kill himself. Here, With such a commentary, the viewer is given
Nicholson suggests, “Truth is what Antonioni a new perception of the sequence that clearly
is passionate about. It’s not so hard to put removes it from the diegetic unity of the film.
into a nutshell. Somehow it is a journey, and The images as a unified whole still exist on the
the accumulation is what makes you see the TV screen: the endless desert and Nicholson
big picture in a new way.” In moments such as as the frustrated reporter aggressively trying
these, Nicholson’s track creates an appeal that to dig his way out. The commentary places
exists beyond the trivial values defining other these images within the context of produc-
commentaries, transcending the commodity tion, though, reminding me that I am simply
of behind-the-scenes anecdotes or even the watching a film that took a crew and a director
cachet of movie stardom. Instead, he provides to shoot. But along with that particular recon-
a less tangible value beyond the independent textualization, the commentary also exists
vocal performance, a convergence of cinema within a more complex dialogue with the filmic
and track that defines another level of cine- image, one that challenges the reality and
philic pleasure. temporality I see onscreen.

Figure 5: David
Locke (Jack Nich-
olson) expresses
frustration over his
stuck jeep in The
Passenger (1975).
The commentary thereby exposes the ma- narrative purposes, but as an analytical cine-
teriality of the image. Using the terminology phile himself, he is also conjecturing as to the
of the Russian formalists, Kristin Thompson motivation of the elements onscreen. Under-
writes, “A film displays a struggle by the unify- standing the significance of Antonioni’s use of
ing structures to ‘contain’ the diverse elements “first world” and “third world” landscapes, the
that make up its whole system. Motivation is actor suggests a visual metalanguage related
the primary tool by which the work makes its to this concept—an elemental relationship
own devices seem reasonable” (134–35). To between the urban and desert settings that
Thompson, this materiality expresses its rea- defines a unified system of images. Nicholson
sonableness through basic formal components dissects the materiality of the film, exposing
onscreen, though these are not always dictated the heterogeneity inherent to the text.
by the artist’s intentions or clear narrative With such an analytical refocus, the com-
codes. Such elements include the form of an mentary track can feel antithetical to the basic
image (such as a color), how long it appears on- precept that cinematic pleasure is voyeuristic
screen (length of a shot), and the redundancies in nature, something proposed by Christian
and repetitions of certain devices. Nicholson’s Metz in The Imaginary Signifier. Metz writes,
commentary proves especially fascinating as “The film is not exhibitionist. I watch it, but it
he often obsesses over such textual elements, doesn’t watch me watching it. Nevertheless,
questioning and analyzing their purpose in it knows that I am watching it. But it doesn’t
relation to the unified whole of the film. Al- want to know” (94). Disrupting this illusion,
though the actor does share memories of the Nicholson’s voice represents a previous viewer
production, he also directly engages the ma- watching the film during the same duration as
teriality of the images as they play before him. the present viewer; the commentary track refo-
For example, as Locke walks up the steps of cuses the scene, removing the viewer from the
his former home in England, Nicholson notes, illusion of voyeuristic distance, making the film
“The Western world, all flowers and pillars and aware of the act of viewing through the addition
villa grade.”3 Later, Nicholson marvels at Anto- of a vocal paratext. Just as Nicholson suggests
nioni’s famous employment of the Gaudí archi- it is “very hard for [him] to separate the experi-
tecture on top of La Pedrera: “Sentinels in the ence of making this movie from the movie it-
desert, kind of. Looks more like outcroppings self,” the viewer is given an extratextual context
than a building.” As each of these moments as well, as the actor imposes his experiences
illustrates, Nicholson is not only giving produc- and analytical insights over the images. Metz
tion information or dissecting these images’ proposes that the cinematic text deals with two

distinctive registers of perception within its with an ontology defined by a very real time
relationship with the audience: and location. Therefore, as opposed to dismiss-
ing the commentary track as a novelty for cine-
The one who knows [that it is viewed] is the philes (an appeal based solely on embracing it
cinema, the institution (and its presence as an independent vocal performance), I pro-
in every film, in the shape of the discourse pose this institutionalized text to be something
which is behind the fiction); the one who
much more profound—a cinematic world that
doesn’t want to know is the film, the text (in
challenges illusions.
its final version): the story. . . . In this way the
cinema manages to be both exhibitionistic The commentary version of The Passenger
and secretive. (95) must thereby be considered as relaying two
temporalities: one defined by the illusion of nar-
With Nicholson reminding us of his role as rative time in the diegetic space and one defined
actor in the defined time and place of the film by the perceived temporal unity of Nicholson’s
location, the text is repurposed for viewers to commentary. The track gives the impression of
expose cinema as an institution—a creative being recorded seamlessly as the actor watches
process shaping the filmic language. Despite the film along with us. (To be honest, though,
the track’s cumulative lack of production notes, editing cuts and invisible breaks in recording
Nicholson does provide some key insights could make this temporal order illusionary as
through brief flashes of memories of working well.) While watching the film and commentary,
with Antonioni. For example, during the famous I am positioned with Nicholson as his own tem-
seven-minute single take marking Locke’s porality is refocused to recall the production
death (where in a single shot, the camera from long-term memory. As his commentary on
moves through the bars of the hotel window), the sequence with his stuck jeep suggests, the
Nicholson relates in detail the famous story of actor can recall flashes of memories, refocusing
how the director created a faux hotel that could the scene from fiction to a reality of production:
be split in two. recalling the sandstorm and the image of the
Although this exposure of the institutions director on the dunes. Ever the Method-trained
behind the fiction might seem to destroy actor, Nicholson suggests that this collapsing of
the enjoyment of the film, pleasure remains fiction and reality is probably “a good thing.”
through a new level of perception, through a A new temporal contextualization proves
fuller conception of the cinematic artifact. The especially profound when watching a film by
commentary track is a definite heterogeneous Antonioni since he is an “art-cinema” direc-
text unto itself, not two texts (the voice and the tor who presents time as perceptual rather
film) competing for my attention. I do not dis- than as the easy-to-follow narrative constant
miss Nicholson’s voice as a truly separate text that largely defines classical Hollywood cin-
because, for this commentary in particular, the ema. Antonioni’s subversions of ordered time
voice is not imposing on the image. The actor, are something Nicholson enjoys discussing
for the most part, comments on the image throughout the commentary—often in a way
as something affecting him as a viewer, even that stresses his viewership as a cinephile
questioning its very materiality. In commenting rather than as an actor who participated in the
about what he is seeing, Nicholson’s voice has production. For example, as Locke explores
a relationship with the images, resulting not his former home in England and locates his
in an intrusion but in a merging of, in Metz’s obituary, Nicholson relates how the lack of
words, the institution of cinema with the text of temporal clarity is particularly affective to him
cinema. The commentary track paired with the as a viewer: “The idea really is to create exactly
filmic image thereby is a unified institutional- what is going through my mind at this moment
ized text. This new third text exposes the fuller when I am watching this playback. What in the
possibilities of cinema as an artifact associated world is going on? Where are we? What time

is it? What country are we in? Then you read lack of exhibitionism, forgoing the visual cues
the announcement of his death, and you know often found in classical cinema with its depen-
it is present time.” As an engaged cinephile, dence on narrative. For example, the first shot
Nicholson notes one of the most distinctive is the day-to-day activities of a small African
aspects of Antonioni’s approach to cinematic desert town, where, in the distance, Nichol-
storytelling—the reconsideration of time with- son’s Locke drives up in his jeep. The camera
out an easy-to-follow continuity for the viewer. only briefly shoots the film’s star and then
Such a style is so disruptive in comparison to pans to the village, where there is some minor
previous systems of cinematic time that Gilles interest in the white stranger as children run
Deleuze, early in Cinema 2, ranks Antonioni to look. In his commentary, Nicholson dissects
among a group of filmmakers who mark a tran- the detachment Antonioni employs at the very
sition to a cinema more interested in the “time- outset of the film: “Typical of Antonioni, it is
image” than in the “movement-image.” These filmed at a dispassionate distance. You look at
films mark a rise in “false continuity in modern the environment. You look at the pace of the
cinema: the images are no longer linked by village, the hard barren rocks.” Here, his com-
rational cuts and continuity, but are relinked by mentary proves significant in how his voice as
means of false continuity and irrational cuts” a paratextual narrator reframes the ambiguities
(xi). For example, in The Passenger, the viewer of cinematic time-image, giving context to the
does not quickly recognize when the film is in false continuities and detachments. With this
a flashback or present time. Yet because this is in mind, my pleasure in watching the converged
an “art film,” such confusion might help feed institutionalized text (the track/image) feels
the viewer’s pleasure since it requires more related to listening to a fellow cinephile with
intellectual engagement with the text as op- a temporality seemingly much like my own.
posed to the passive engagements that define Nicholson’s voice grounds a film noteworthy for
classical narrative spaces. its resistance to the temporal simplicity found
Even when the film adopts an easily identifi- in classical Hollywood narrative. The vocal
able fixed time and location, the aesthetic style performance feels less independent and more
of Antonioni takes on a meditative distance dependent on the images themselves—or more
that feels related to a time-image approach precisely, it feels like Nicholson is engaging
to cinematic temporality. These signs give the with my own engagement with the images.
onscreen images a different context than that
found in the prescriptive spaces of the classical Reconsidering the Commentary
Hollywood narratives of Good and Something. Track’s Cinephilic Value
Here, a contemplative openness and objectivity
defines the mise-en-scéne. Deleuze writes of Throughout this article, I have argued that the
the “time-image,” making a specific reference commentary track can contain pleasures well
to Antonioni’s L’avventura, beyond the trivial, engaging two other sources
of pleasure: (1) an appreciation of the commen-
Sometimes, as in Antonioni, they are objec- tator as an independent vocal performance and
tive images, in the manner of a report, even (2) a pleasure based in how the commentary
if this is a report of an accident, defined by resituates the cinematic text as time-image,
geometrical frame which now allows only the
creating a converged third institutionalized
existence of relations of measurement and
text. Both of these are valid forms of pleasure
distance between its elements, persons, and
objects, this time transforming the action and, to be honest, do not escape the marketing
into displacement of figures in space. (6) of commentary as a DVD extra that appeals to
Thomas Elsaesser’s points on “cinephilia: take
In The Passenger, Antonioni’s famous detached two”—that post–digital revolution split within
visual style as a “report” stresses a notable cinephilia between twentieth-century cinema

and new communities defined by the techno- technology, with the ability to pause and re-
logical advancements of home viewing and the play. Through the addition of Nicholson’s com-
Internet. Whatever my reasoning for enjoying mentary, all those profound Antonioni visuals
Nicholson’s commentary over The Passenger, (the sprawling desert, the roof of La Pedrera,
the track is still an extra feature added to ap- the long-take death scene, the unique pas-
peal to me as a twenty-first-century cinephile— sivity in Nicholson’s performance) are given
albeit one fascinated with a twentieth-century new focus and meaning, breaking down the
film, its auteur, and its leading man. temporal distinctions of onscreen space/time
Also, I fully acknowledge that these two and viewer space/time. The pleasures analyzed
levels of enjoyment are somewhat paradoxical, in this article thereby suggest something pos-
suggesting the commentary track as existing sibly revolutionary in the DVD commentary, the
both beyond and of the cinema. Nicholson’s potential to consider the cinema beyond the
voice can be registered as engaging us inde- narrative and beyond the temporal—in other
pendently as viewers beyond the text, but it words, beyond the trivial.
is also unable to exist without the cinematic
image itself. Yet these contradictions only fur- notes
ther characterize the extra feature as a product I wish to thank the anonymous Journal of Film and
of “take two,” which creates an engagement Video readers for their helpful suggestions as well as
my blood brother in cinephilia, Jason Sperb.
where technology challenges the textual and
the temporal. As Elsaesser writes, 1. Because he was a major auteur of the twentieth
century, academic works on Antonioni are plentiful,
cinephilia take two would seem to be a more and many give close readings of The Passenger. Among
the best are William Arrowsmith’s Antonioni: The Poet
complex affair involving an even more ambiva-
of Images; Peter Brunette’s The Films of Michelangelo
lent state of mind and body. Against “trepida- Antonioni; Seymour Chatman’s Michelangelo Anto-
tion in anticipation” (take one), the agitation nioni: The Complete Films and Antonioni or, the Surface
of cinephilia take two might best be described of the World; Murray Pomerance’s Michelangelo Red
by the terms of “stressed/distressed,” having Antonioni Blue: Eight Reflections on Cinema; Sam Ro-
to live in a non-linear, non-directional “too hdie’s Antonioni; and Ned Rifkin’s Antonioni’s Visual
much/all at once” state of permanent tension Language. See also the following articles: Homay
. . . Cinephilia take two is therefore painfully King’s “‘All The Shapes We Make’: The Passenger’s
aware of the paradox that cinephilia take one Flight from Formal Stagnation”; Jack Turner’s “Antonio-
ni’s The Passenger and Identity/Identifying” and “The
may have lived out in practice, but would not
Passenger, Lacan, and The Real”; and Martin Walsh’s
ultimately confront. (39)
“The Passenger: Antonioni’s Narrative Design.”
2. Overall, this change can be characterized as a
As a product that came of age during the digital generational shift perpetuated by the technological
revolution, the DVD commentary fully embraces innovations of the digital revolution. For more on this
(and, if the commentator is as savvy as Nichol- still-in-flux digital moment in the history of cinephilia,
son, confronts) the paradoxes of cinephilia. In see the following collections: Marijke de Valch and
Malte Hagener, eds., Cinephilia: Movies, Love, and
fact, beginning decades ago on laser disc, the Memory; Jonathan Rosenbaum and Adrian Martin,
commentary track might have been one of the eds., Movie Mutations: The Changing Face of World
first significant steps toward cinephilia “take Cinephilia; and Scott Balcerzak and Jason Sperb,
two” and its potential to challenge the tempo- eds., Cinephilia in the Age of Digital Reproduction:
Film, Pleasure and Digital Culture, vols. 1 and 2.
ralities of the filmic image. My love of Antonioni
3. I believe Nicholson says “grade” here, but this is
and, more specifically, Nicholson prompted not absolutely clear.
me to listen to the track and to desperately
seek that sense of “self-presence” that the references
personal cinephilic experience p romises—the Arrowsmith, William. Antonioni: The Poet of Images.
profound reaction to that unique moment that New York: Oxford UP, 1995. Print.
loses it fleetingness in the realm of digital Balcerzak, Scott, and Jason Sperb, eds. Cinephilia in

the Age of Digital Reproduction: Film, Pleasure and Literature, Philosophy, Visual Arts, History 11.2
Digital Culture. Vol. 1. London: Wallflower, 2009. (1999): 115–25. Print.
Print. Klinger, Barbara. Beyond the Multiplex: Cinema, New
———. Cinephilia in the Age of Digital Reproduction: Technologies, and the Home. Berkley: U of Califor-
Film, Pleasure and Digital Culture. Vol. 2. London: nia P, 2006. Print.
Wallflower, 2012. Print. Metz, Christian. The Imaginary Signifier: Psycho-
Barlow, Aaron. The DVD Revolution: Movies, Culture, analysis and the Cinema. Trans. Celia Britton, An-
and Technology. Westport: Praeger, 2005. Print. nwyl Williams, Ben Brewster, and Alfred Guzzetti.
Bertellini, Giorgio, and Jacqueline Reich. “DVD Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1977. Print.
Supplements: A Commentary on Commentarie.” Parker, Deborah, and Mark Parker. “Directors and DVD
Cinema Journal 49.3 (2010): 103–05. Print. Commentary: The Specifics of Intention.” Journal
Bingham, Dennis. Acting Male: Masculinities in the of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 62.1 (2004): 13–22.
Films of James Stewart, Jack Nicholson, and Clint Print.
Eastwood. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1994. Print. Pomerance, Murray. Michelangelo Red Antonioni
Bordwell, David. “Classical Hollywood Cinema: Nar- Blue: Eight Reflections on Cinema. Berkeley: U of
rational Principles and Procedures.” Rosen 17–34. California P, 2011. Print.
Print. Rifkin, Ned. Antonioni’s Visual Language. Ann Arbor:
Brunette, Peter. The Films of Michelangelo Antonioni. UMI Research P, 1982. Print.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print. Rohdie, Sam. Antonioni. London: BFI, 1990. Print.
Chatman, Seymour. Antonioni or, the Surface of the Rosen, Philip, ed. Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology: A
World. Berkeley: U of California P, 1985. Print. Film Theory Reader. New York: Columbia UP, 1986.
———. Michelangelo Antonioni: The Complete Films. Print.
Köln: Taschen, 2004. Print. Rosenbaum, Jonathan, and Adrian Martin, eds. Movie
Chion, Michel. The Voice of Cinema. Trans. Claudia Mutations: The Changing Face of World Cinephilia.
Gorbman. New York: Columbia UP, 1999. Print. London: BFI, 2003. Print.
Deleuze, Gilles. Cinema 2: The Time Image. Trans. Sontag, Susan. “The Decay of Cinema.” New York
Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta. Minneapolis: U Times Magazine 25 Feb. 1996: 60–61. Print.
of Minnesota P, 1989. Print. Thompson, Kristin. “The Concept of Cinematic Ex-
Dembry, Betty Jefferies, and Larry Sturhahn. “Anto- cess.” Rosen 130–42. Print.
nioni Discusses The Passenger.” Michelangelo Turner, Jack. “Antonioni’s The Passenger and Identity/
Antonioni: Interviews. Ed. Bert Cardullo. Jackson: U Identifying.” Quarterly Review of Film and Video
of Mississippi P, 2008. 104–15. Print. 17.2 (2000): 127–35. Print.
De Valch, Marijke, and Malte Hagener, eds. Cine- ———. “The Passenger, Lacan, and the Real.” Post
philia: Movies, Love, and Memory. Amsterdam: Script: Essays in Film and the Humanities 9.1–2
Amsterdam UP, 2005. Print. (1989): 53–66. Print.
Elsaesser, Thomas. “Cinephilia or the Uses of Disen- Walker, Beverly. “Jack Nicholson: The Bird Is on His
chantment.” De Valch and Hagener 27–43. Print. Own (Interview with Jack Nicholson).” Playing to the
Grant, Catherine. “Auteur Machines? Auteurism and Camera: Film Actors Discuss Their Craft. Ed. Bert Car-
the DVD.” Film and Television after DVD. Ed. James dullo, Harry Geduld, Ronald Gottesman, and Leigh
Bennett and Tom Brown. New York: Routledge, Woods. New Haven: Yale UP, 1998. 302–08. Print.
2008. 101–15. Print. Walsh, Martin. “The Passenger: Antonioni’s Narra-
King, Homay. “‘All the Shapes We Make’: The Pas- tive Design.” Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary
senger’s Flight From Formal Stagnation.” Qui Parle: Media 8 (1975): 7–10. Print.


University Film & Video Association, University of Illinois Press Journal of Film and Video

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

University Film & Video Association, University of Illinois Press Journal of Film and Video

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

University Film & Video Association, University of Illinois Press Journal of Film and Video

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Cinephilic Pleasures of DVD Commentary: Watching The Passenger (1975) with Jack

journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014 21

Figure 1: Jack Nichol-

22 journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014

journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014 23

24 journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014

journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014 25

26 journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014

journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014 27

Figure 2: At this mo-

28 journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014

journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014 29

30 journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014

journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014 31

32 journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014

journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014 33

34 journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014

journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014 35

36 journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014

journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014 37

38 journal of film and video 66.1 / spring 2014

You might also like