I'm talking about director Gregory Nava's commentary on the Criterion blu-ray/DVD of El Norte. To any fans of this movie, you absolutely must listen to his commentary because it adds so much, points out things you probably missed, and really shows you how carefully planned every aspect of this film is.

One thing that irks me about bonus commentaries is when the person ignores what's on screen and simply talks about the movie in general, its history, the people who worked on it, etc. Sure that's good information but it would be better served in a separate documentary or interview. Here the director pays close attention to each scene, tells us exactly what we're seeing, what he intended to convey, how he did it, what certain visual symbols mean, and why. It's like a course in cinema/art appreciation taught by the artist himself. There are a handful of directors who also take this approach, notably one of my faves Wim Wenders whose commentaries are packed with artistic insights. But where Nava's commentary slams the competition is in his enthusiasm and passion. At times his voice gets so rousing it sucks you in despite what he's talking about.

Here are just a few of the many things he pointed out, which I hadn't noticed on 1st watch

1. Everything in the film repeats itself. Every scene in the beginning is mirrored by a 2nd scene later which puts it all into (usually ironic) context.
2. The entire story is based on an ancient Mayan myth/poem whose name I didn't catch but it's something like an Orpheus/Eurydice story of journeying through the land of the dead. Rosa & Enrique aren't just 2 migrants but they're representations of an epic myth.
3. Symbolism: a circle is a recurring visual symbol which Nava uses a lot in transition scenes (the moon, a tire, a water wheel, a headlight, etc). I noticed this but wasn't sure what it was supposed to signify until listening to the commentary, then it suddenly clicked. This story is basically a circle, or as he puts it a spiral. This goes back to the ancient Mayan concept of time which is a circle, as opposed to most Western thinking where it's line traveling from past to future. The visual symbol of the circle reminds us that things are circling around.
4. Symbolism: squawking bird in the beginning of a scene foreshadows that a betrayal is about to occur.
5. Symbolism: the color white, in Mayan lore, represents death or difficulties (as opposed to black in most other cultures). So when you see for example the scene of white butterflies it's not supposed to be a happy magical thing but rather a very dark omen
6. The colors! This was an issue of aesthetics more than symbolism or message. Nava points out that the first half of the movie, shot in Central America, was rich in vivid, natural colors due to the locations. This presented a problem when the story shifts to LA, mostly indoors in somewhat drab locations like the motel. Their solution was to drench these LA locations in creative lighting (like the pink neon of their hotel room) in order to keep the visuals on par with the 1st half, otherwise it would've been a total downer.
7. Lighting: all the lighting in the 1st half was done with real (non electric) light sources. Sunlight was augmented with mirrors, and indoor scenes were lit with hundreds of candles and/or kerosene lamps. This contrasts against the 2nd half where, as in point 6, we see extreme electric/artificial light. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out the symbolism here (the natural Guatamalan world vs. the artificial American world).
8. The last scene--I'm talking about the very last 1 sec edit which I won't spoil--is a sudden cut to an image that the director caught a lot of heat for. He explains what it means and why it was necessary. At first I didn't like it but now I wholly agree we had to see it.