#viewing 11

MASTER OF THE MASTER OF DISGUISE HAS IT’S OWN BLOG AT 

THEMASTEROFTHEMASTEROFDISGUISE.TUMBLR.COM

I’m in a festive mood. I write this entry from a dive bar. I am drinking. I am happy. Today to celebrate being over halfway to becoming The Master of The Master of Disguise I decided to watch the movie with director’s commentary. I was extremely excited. It didn’t seem possible that there could be a new way to experience this movie. What further insight could there possibly be that I hadn’t already thought of unless it was coming straight from the director? I had seen this movie more times than probably 99.9% of the people who had ever seen it at all. I probably have seen it more times than Dana Carvey has, and certainly more than any critic. This viewing was like Christmas.  I was going to get something shiny and new! I was getting a reward for my scholarly vigor!

The commentary is given by director Perry Andelin Blake and Dana Carvey. Perry Blake appears to be a resident production director for Adam Sandler’s shitty company because when I search for him on IMDB I see that he is partially responsible for “Click,” “Big Daddy,” and just about every Adam Sandler movie (including the good ones). The Master of Disguise was the only film he every directed. I can’t imagine why. His commentary partner Dana Carvey is known for being funny on SNL, playing Garth in Wayne’s World and being the tour de force that is Pistachio Disguisey in the Master of Disguise. This commentary team seems remarkably unprepared to discuss the movie. At first they try to crack some awkward jokes over the action about how they designed the Columbia Paramount insignia at the beginning.  Eventually they settle on half-insight and half humor jibes throughout the eighty minutes.

The director doesn’t really offer anything interesting to the commentary. He occasionally fills the viewer in with trivia bits about how some shots have Dana wearing glasses with lenses and others don’t, or how he shoots all of the villain’s scenes with blue light. He likes talking about homages he made to other movies and friends of his that he cast as extras. These particulars are probably only interesting to someone as invested as myself. Perry Blake is a sad pathetic man in way over his Hollywood head.

what a toolbag.

Dana Carvey on the other hand is fascinating in the commentary. He clearly has perspective on how the public and critics are going to receive the Master of Disguise. He is very self critical throughout the commentary and also demonstrates that he understands much of the criticism. When discussing co-star Harold Gould’s acting career he self-mockingly says, “he worked with Redford, he worked with Brando... and now Carvey.”  About a quarter of the way through the director’s commentary Dana also says, “at this point in the movie the critics are probably going ‘WHAT?!’” Though he understands the fact that the movie is destined to be a critical failure he also indicates that he doesn’t give a single fuck. His primary concerns are with the movies absurdity, other-worldliness, and kid friendly tone. He even says himself that the film is “just a low budget quickly” targeting kids. He describes the character Devlin Bowman by saying, “in a PG movie you want to have a villain who is kind of likable so kids don’t get scared” and later says, “When you are trying to be a 6 year old you don’t want to be subtle.” Basically, as long as this movie works for kids it works for Carvey. 

a kids movie?

Dana also appears particularly proud of the movie’s illogical nature. At the beginning when a baby slaps a doctor and somehow speaks English Dana proclaims, "Here is the first time we depart from logic.” He relishes in the absurd. When Pistachio has spilled spaghetti all over some patrons Dana says, “and that’s what I love about it, it's madness. These people are completely covered in spaghetti and they aren't moving at all.” He says similarly later regarding what I consider the worst moment in the film, “ (Abe) Lincoln dancing funny is one of the comedy constants of the universe. It never gets old. Again we depart from absolute logic in that we have a modern song in 1850, but it's just a silly movie.” While I completely disagree that this never gets old or even that it can even be considered comedic, I do appreciate that he doesn’t take the film too seriously. For what is life if not absurdity? It’s as though Carvey is channeling Lawrence Ferlinghetti’s “Constantly Risking Absurdity” and Camus’ proclamation that the human condition is inherently absurd. This is the definitive proof that the film is a poetic existential masterpiece.

Throughout the commentary it becomes clear that decisions were made on a whim regarding everything from casting to major plot elements to details in props and costume. Carvey and Blake aren’t shy to tell us that budgetary constraints made them skip over expository scenes. Carvey claims they had to “quit to the quick.” Because of this necessity you see things like the Disguisey book popping up to surprisingly specific bit of code in the Disguisey Way regarding how parents can only be saved without direct interference from the grandfather. Carvey claims, “This is one of our arbitrary plot points... because we needed the grandpa to go away.” Essentially, they went for the bare minimum required of them in order to further the plot but weren’t shy about dropping copious amounts of cash on CGI and licensing rights to pop songs. Dana likes flaunting how they paid Madonna $17k just to say “One of the great non-sequiturs in movie history” quoting Poppa Don’t Preach. He also flaunts how high the bill was for every CGI sequence where a mask was removed. 

The most interest part of the director’s commentary however was that Dana Carvey hadn’t actually seen the final cut of the movie before doing the commentary. The viewer gets to witness Carvey’s initial and unmeasured reactions to the final product. This is especially exciting when Dana seems to actually disagree with certain decisions. He seems perturbed (understandably) about the sequence in which the turtle guy bites off the nose of some jerk. Carvey concedes that it probably got a few laughs from kids but also makes sure to point out that it was Adam Sandler’s idea. It’s as though he doesn’t want to assume responsibility. He is definitely uncomfortable with the atrocious ending credits. He makes sure to point out that the ending sequence in Costa Rica was added late just so he could do a George Bush imitation. He also says to the director Blake that he thought a lot of the footage at the end would be used as DVD extras and not make it into the actual film. His tone changes. He disagrees strongly. I bet he slapped Blake after the commentary was through.

The director’s commentary managed to provide me with further understanding of this comedic gem. While the production team is lighthearted and silly—I still believe that they were secretly invested in portraying complex issues of identity and existential philosophy. This will finally be discussed in my next entry.

LEVEL 3,330 SCHOLAR

MASTER OF THE MASTER OF DISGUISE HAS IT’S OWN BLOG AT 

I’m in a festive mood. I write this entry from a dive bar. I am drinking. I am happy. Today to celebrate being over halfway to becoming The Master of The Master of Disguise I decided to watch the movie with director’s commentary. I was extremely excited. It didn’t seem possible that there could be a new way to experience this movie. What further insight could there possibly be that I hadn’t already thought of unless it was coming straight from the director? I had seen this movie more times than probably 99.9% of the people who had ever seen it at all. I probably have seen it more times than Dana Carvey has, and certainly more than any critic. This viewing was like Christmas.  I was going to get something shiny and new! I was getting a reward for my scholarly vigor!

The commentary is given by director Perry Andelin Blake and Dana Carvey. Perry Blake appears to be a resident production director for Adam Sandler’s shitty company because when I search for him on IMDB I see that he is partially responsible for “Click,” “Big Daddy,” and just about every Adam Sandler movie (including the good ones). The Master of Disguise was the only film he every directed. I can’t imagine why. His commentary partner Dana Carvey is known for being funny on SNL, playing Garth in Wayne’s World and being the tour de force that is Pistachio Disguisey in the Master of Disguise. This commentary team seems remarkably unprepared to discuss the movie. At first they try to crack some awkward jokes over the action about how they designed the Columbia Paramount insignia at the beginning.  Eventually they settle on half-insight and half humor jibes throughout the eighty minutes.

The director doesn’t really offer anything interesting to the commentary. He occasionally fills the viewer in with trivia bits about how some shots have Dana wearing glasses with lenses and others don’t, or how he shoots all of the villain’s scenes with blue light. He likes talking about homages he made to other movies and friends of his that he cast as extras. These particulars are probably only interesting to someone as invested as myself. Perry Blake is a sad pathetic man in way over his Hollywood head.

what a toolbag.

Dana Carvey on the other hand is fascinating in the commentary. He clearly has perspective on how the public and critics are going to receive the Master of Disguise. He is very self critical throughout the commentary and also demonstrates that he understands much of the criticism. When discussing co-star Harold Gould’s acting career he self-mockingly says, “he worked with Redford, he worked with Brando... and now Carvey.”  About a quarter of the way through the director’s commentary Dana also says, “at this point in the movie the critics are probably going ‘WHAT?!’” Though he understands the fact that the movie is destined to be a critical failure he also indicates that he doesn’t give a single fuck. His primary concerns are with the movies absurdity, other-worldliness, and kid friendly tone. He even says himself that the film is “just a low budget quickly” targeting kids. He describes the character Devlin Bowman by saying, “in a PG movie you want to have a villain who is kind of likable so kids don’t get scared” and later says, “When you are trying to be a 6 year old you don’t want to be subtle.” Basically, as long as this movie works for kids it works for Carvey. 

a kids movie?

Dana also appears particularly proud of the movie’s illogical nature. At the beginning when a baby slaps a doctor and somehow speaks English Dana proclaims, "Here is the first time we depart from logic.” He relishes in the absurd. When Pistachio has spilled spaghetti all over some patrons Dana says, “and that’s what I love about it, it's madness. These people are completely covered in spaghetti and they aren't moving at all.” He says similarly later regarding what I consider the worst moment in the film, “ (Abe) Lincoln dancing funny is one of the comedy constants of the universe. It never gets old. Again we depart from absolute logic in that we have a modern song in 1850, but it's just a silly movie.” While I completely disagree that this never gets old or even that it can even be considered comedic, I do appreciate that he doesn’t take the film too seriously. For what is life if not absurdity? It’s as though Carvey is channeling Lawrence Ferlinghetti’s “Constantly Risking Absurdity” and Camus’ proclamation that the human condition is inherently absurd. This is the definitive proof that the film is a poetic existential masterpiece.

Throughout the commentary it becomes clear that decisions were made on a whim regarding everything from casting to major plot elements to details in props and costume. Carvey and Blake aren’t shy to tell us that budgetary constraints made them skip over expository scenes. Carvey claims they had to “quit to the quick.” Because of this necessity you see things like the Disguisey book popping up to surprisingly specific bit of code in the Disguisey Way regarding how parents can only be saved without direct interference from the grandfather. Carvey claims, “This is one of our arbitrary plot points... because we needed the grandpa to go away.” Essentially, they went for the bare minimum required of them in order to further the plot but weren’t shy about dropping copious amounts of cash on CGI and licensing rights to pop songs. Dana likes flaunting how they paid Madonna $17k just to say “One of the great non-sequiturs in movie history” quoting Poppa Don’t Preach. He also flaunts how high the bill was for every CGI sequence where a mask was removed. 

The most interest part of the director’s commentary however was that Dana Carvey hadn’t actually seen the final cut of the movie before doing the commentary. The viewer gets to witness Carvey’s initial and unmeasured reactions to the final product. This is especially exciting when Dana seems to actually disagree with certain decisions. He seems perturbed (understandably) about the sequence in which the turtle guy bites off the nose of some jerk. Carvey concedes that it probably got a few laughs from kids but also makes sure to point out that it was Adam Sandler’s idea. It’s as though he doesn’t want to assume responsibility. He is definitely uncomfortable with the atrocious ending credits. He makes sure to point out that the ending sequence in Costa Rica was added late just so he could do a George Bush imitation. He also says to the director Blake that he thought a lot of the footage at the end would be used as DVD extras and not make it into the actual film. His tone changes. He disagrees strongly. I bet he slapped Blake after the commentary was through.

The director’s commentary managed to provide me with further understanding of this comedic gem. While the production team is lighthearted and silly—I still believe that they were secretly invested in portraying complex issues of identity and existential philosophy. This will finally be discussed in my next entry.

LEVEL 3,330 SCHOLAR