Archive

editing

I see that Persepolis is opening at US cinemas this week. I see that the editor of this animated film is credited as Editor/Compositor. Compositors layer shots so that they combine foregrounds and backgrounds from different sources. This is used in animated and special visual effects shots (the more recent Star Wars trilogy for example).

An interesting job combination. We editors compose by combining shots in the 4th dimension. If we are compositors too, we take shots and combine them in 2 and bit dimensions. It may be that future movies will more often record background (plate) footage so that retakes and alternate line readings can be composed into new shots by compos-editors.

Now, where’s that manual page about difference mattes…

According to an article at The Hollywood Reporter, the writer’s strike and imminent negotiations with the directors and actors may give TV networks the chance to break out of the development cycle. Each spring they fund many scripts that are produced as pilots (100+ per network), some of which are turned into pilots (around 25), few of which are turned into series (less than ten), few of which make it past the first twelve episodes (one or two make it). This costs millions of dollars – pilots cost an average of $5 million these days.

The strike and possible future strikes mean that the next cycle of development is threatened. The studios want to take this chance to get off the merry-go-round. They want to do this to save money. Writers and post-production people might find the crap-shoot that is pilot season frustrating, but they’ll miss it if it goes. The studios want to spend less money on producing content that will never get shown to an audience. That means less work for production teams.

This will only change once the networks convince the advertisers to support a new development process – where new shows can start at any time of the year. This is the way it used to work in the primordial days of TV and is the way in other countries. Which system is better for writers and editors?

Screenwriters are told not to put camera directions in scripts. That irritates directors. It is possible to put editing directions in scripts! If you want to read a script with built-in momentum take a look at the script of The Bourne Supremacy:


INT. THE AUDI/REST-STOP -- NIGHT
    BOURNE'S EYES OPENING! -- heart pounding -- springing up --
    alone -- damn, his side hurts -- recoiling from that --
    where is he? -- he's in the car -- looking around and --
   
    HIS WINDSHIELD POV
    AN AUTOBAHN REST-STOP. Gas station. Sleeping trucks.
   
    BACK TO
    BOURNE catching his breath -- shifting away from the pain
    in his rib -- checking his watch -- but what the hell is
    that on his sleeve? -- fuck, it's BLOOD -- JARDA's blood --
   
EXT. AUTOBAHN REST-STOP -- NIGHT
    BOURNE out of the car fast -- careless -- wrong -- not even
    checking who's watching -- pulling off the shirt -- tearing
    it off -- throwing it down and --
    Standing there. In the weird light. A big bruise ripening
    on his side. Looking around.
    It's okay. Nobody's watching. But, shit, man...
    Get it together.
   
INT. PEUGEOT -- AUTOBAHN -- NIGHT
    Streaking along. BOURNE back to his mission.

I’m not sure if I could choose between writing scenes like this or editing scenes like this!

Looks like editors of factual TV productions in the UK have a new kind of client to deal with. The ‘Edit Producer.’ I noticed this credit roll by on a TV show this evening. I wondered if the emphasis was on ‘edit’ or ‘produce.’ If it is an editor who supervises or produces the edit of a series with the help of different editing teams, or it is a producer who is solely responsible for producing the edit. I hoped it was the former. It turns out to be the latter:

With factual reality shows, the producers who were on set during the shoot will typically run the edit. This is because there is a huge amount of material and you need someone who was very close to the action with the editor to ensure nothing gets lost. Thus they will be credited as producers and so the term edit producer won’t be used. However with gameshows the edit is often run by someone who was not part of the production of the shoot but is brought in because they have a flair for assembling linear material into something compelling. A bit like a good record producer. The fantastic Adam Wood, who I had got to know well on Playing it Straight – he was the executive producer – was kind enough to think I could make a good fist of the Cash Cab footage that had been shot, so he called me and I came in to cut the establishing episodes. In fact, I’m proud to say that I cut the pilot that Adam used to sell the show worldwide.

(from a UK gameshow blog)

If the Edit Producer is the one with the “flair for assembling linear material into something compelling,” I wonder what the editor’s role is?

The great thing about being out and about in a multicultural city is that you have plenty of options to practice editing. Unlike my parents and many of my friends, I only understand (almost) one language. There is a silver lining to this cloud. When people around me speak any language but English, I don’t understand what they are saying.

When people are having conversations in languages I don’t understand, I can practice my editing. I do this by looking at each person in turn, choosing when to look from one to the other based on where I would edit. As I do not understand what they are talking about, I use the body language and eye-trace of the people involved. It works fine when two people are face to face on a train. It works better when three are sat a little further apart.

A great deal of editing dialogue is making the edits invisible by showing the audience exactly what they want to see when they want to see it. If you cut to someone thinking about what is being said at the moment the audience wants to know what they are thinking, they will not see the edit. They will take the time to absorb how the person not speaking is reacting.

It turns out that most of the cues we use to help us follow the emotional component of the conversation aren’t verbal.

That is why editing without listening (or even understanding) the dialogue can be very helpful. So get out into the multicultural world. If you have the handicap of being a polyglot, put on your headphones, crank up the stereo, ignore the words being said.

Keep practicing.

Walter Murch (The Conversations):

When you’re putting a scene together, the three key things you are deciding, over and over again, are: What shot shall I use? Where shall I begin it? Where shall I end it? An average film may have a thousand edits in it, so: three thousand decisions. But if you can answer those questions in the most interesting, complex, musical, dramatic way, the your film will be alive as it can be.

For me, the most rhythmically important decision of the three is the last: Where do you end the shot? You and it at the exact moment in which it has revealed everything that it’s going to reveal, in its fullness, without being over-ripe. If you end the shot too soon, you have the equivalent of youth cut off in its bloom. Its potential is unrealised. If you hold a shot too long, things tend to putrefy.

David Mamet may not be a very good director, but he has something interesting to say about editing:

You always want to tell the story in cuts. Which is to say, through a juxtaposition of images that are basically uninflected. Mr. Eisenstein tells us that the best image is an uninflected image. A shot of a teacup. A shot of a spoon. A shot of a fork. A shot of a door. Let the cut tell the story. Because otherwise you have not got dramatic action, you have narration. If you slip into narration, you are saying , ‘you’ll never guess why what I’ve just told you is important to the story.’ It’s unimportant that the audience should guess why it’s important to the story. It’s important simply to tell the story. Let the audince be surprised.

Mamet has this to say on how this should influence scriptwriting:

Most movie scripts are written for an audience of studio executives. Studio executives do not know how to read movie scripts. Not one of them. Not one of them knows how to read a movie script. A movie script should be a juxtaposition of uninflected shots that tell the story. To read this script and ‘see’ the movie will surely require either some cinematic education or some naïveté – neither of which is going to be found in the studio executive.

So, Mamet is wrong, but his idea is interesting.

After a few years of making videos for conferences it’s good to go back and do something new (to me). To promote teamworking and to illustrate the concept of collaboration, teams at this conference were given two hours to come up with and shoot a one minute film. They then were given 30 minutes with one of us editors.

Sometimes it took 40 minutes, but I helped make three interesting films.

When you’ve got such a short amount of time, you need to concentrate on the basics. I didn’t name clips or reels or bins. It was capture “Untitled” and “Untitled1”, detect DV starts and stops, pick takes, set ins and outs and put shots into order. Then there was just enough time to add captions and graphics, a soundtrack and… next team please.

When you’re under that sort of time pressure, you have to go with your gut went choosing the shots and how long to let them run. You won’t have time to go back and sort them out. You have to trust that if the same editor sets the ins and outs, then the feel will be consistent through the film.

The lesson – if you can get good results in three hours, get making films. Don’t forget The Big Things. They seem to make a new film at least every day…

…on my way back to London – back in March.”

A good way of dealing with day-to-day irritations is to realise how unlikely it would be for you to tell the tale of your frustration to a loved one a few days or even hours later. The late train, the mislaid keys, the burnt toast. In the moment they happen, you take it so personally: “Why is this happening to me?” As time passes, you realise that these events say nothing about you personally – they are not part of the story of your life. They aren’t usually important enough to tell anyone – unless you are giving an excuse.

To be good storytellers, we need to know what to leave out. A good number of people understand the editing job to be ‘put the film together – leaving out the bits that didn’t work’. That’s not far off what the writer needs to do as well.

We tell our stories with the irrelevant parts absent: we don’t hear about the valiant prince pitching a tent each night on his month-long journey to Repunzel’s tower. Why do our heroes never eat or drink, have problems hailing a cab or finding a parking place? Because how they do these things doesn’t make the story any better. We only show what is needed to tell the story. To make our point. That doesn’t mean only the actions of the people involved. We also show things that add atmosphere, build tension and build irony.

One of the tasks that writers and editors share is to ‘cut the boring bits out.’ They need to choose which version of a moment to use, and in what proportion and rhythm. It’s just that writers have every possible thought to choose from, whereas editors have to deal with the pictures shot and the sounds recorded by the rest of the film making team.

Which set of ingredients are you most happy to work with?

Walter Murch says that being an editor is about maintaining the plumbing, writing with the materials you’ve been given and performing to the rhythm of the story…

He presented at the LA Final Cut Pro User Group Supermeet at NAB earlier this year. He also explains how he edited the new Francis Ford Coppola film Youth Without Youth on Final Cut at DV resolution. The rushes all fitted onto a 2GB hard drive.

Find out more on this video podcast.