Saturday 5 July 2014

Confessions of an Editor

I want to thank director Neil Oseman for inspiring this post. Neil recently wrote a blog discussing our work editing his short Amelia's Letter. I’m immensely proud of our work on the film. You can read his post here

It left me thinking about film editing as whole. I joke to my friends that when you boil it down, film editing is just gluing pictures together. What is it about this act which has caused me, a relatively extravert outdoors type person, to spend their entire adult life in doors staring at a computer?

What is it that has kept me fascinated? I’ve missed parties, nights out, conversations, been late for stuff. All because I wanted to make one last tweak. Or to get a scene just right. Perfect even. I’m not a competitive person by nature. But this is the thing I want to be the best at. Something subjective where there can never be a ‘best’ and where, if you’ve done a good job, your work should be invisible. 

I’ve always wanted to make films. Getting hold of a video camera back in the 90’s was easy. Editing - that was hard. You had to record all the sequences of your film in the order you wanted to see them in. If you messed up a take you had to rewind the tape to the exact spot you started the take and record it again. 

There was an alternative. You could get two video recorders. One to play and one to record. This way you could film multiple takes. Choose the one you wanted and record that onto a fresh tape. The timing had to be exact. If you made a mistake you would record over the end of the previous clip. Then you would have to start all over again. 

Now this is where it got geeky.  If you had a computer you could bypass the sound of the camcorder and record sounds from the computer to your film. I had a few disastrous instances early on which my friends still find hilarious to this day. This is where it gets complicated. If you had a friend who was a DJ you could use their mixer to get extra sound channels recorded to your film. This means that you could combine music, sound effects together with your film's original sound. It all had to recoded live. In time with what was happening on screen. If you made a mistake - back to the beginning. 

When I start thinking about all this I wonder if I should have spent more time kissing girls on the mouth. 

If you’d seen my room in the 90’s it was always a mess. On days when I was trying to do this it must have looked like a mad professors lab. Equipment stacked all over the pace. Wires and cables everywhere. 

Seems a bit much doesn’t it? The more conversations I have with editors the more I realise I wasn’t alone.  Everyone had their crazy method of creating their film. 

Then it all changed. One day when I was in 6th Form. A friend of mine came home from college with a piece of software. Adobe Premiere 5. Digital editing software.

It. Was. Magic.

You could take clips and place them in any order. If you made a mistake you could just undo. This felt like filmmaking. If I was’t hooked before - I was now.   

At the time I didn’t realise what was happening in the wider industry. The change that the digital software represented. I was unwittingly part of a new breed of editor. One that would never touch a piece of film, never smell developing fluid, never use a grease pencil. A generation for whom the phrase “left on the cutting room floor,” would only be a metaphor. 

The editors of old worked standing up. Cutting was both a physical and tactile experience. Something you did with your hands. You picked up the film. Found the In Point. Marked it with a grease pencil. Cut it with scissors. Discarded offcuts and adjoined the pieces together with sticky tape.

Not all filmmakers have embraced the change to digital. Spielberg reportedly brought up all the remaining Moviolas editing machines in Hollywood. So he would have spares for the rest of his career.  



This new digital software, referred to as NLE (Non Linear Editing) was conceived from a project helmed by George Lucas. Lucas, himself an editor, felt that computers could be used to organise clips and make the process of editing easier. His company developed the Edit Droid in 1983. A computerised bay that took up an entire room. It was the beginning. Paving the way for all the software to come.  


  

I’m pleased I missed the physical side of editing. I’m terrible with my hands. If editing had been more akin to crafting something with your hands I would have been useless. 

So what is it that keeps me nailed to my computer?

Editing is about context. Its about the image, the image that preceded it and the image that follows it. Its about problem solving, meditation, repetition, focus, play, curiosity, and experimentation. What happens if I put this bit here? How does the meaning of this line change if we see them say it. How will it change if we watch a character react while the same line is said? There is no right or wrong. There is only 'this way' or 'that way.’ Or even more exciting - how can I use this clip in a way it was never intended? Films are littered with creative edit decisions like this. The triumphant Tusken Raider in A New Hope thrusting his Gaffi Stick into the air is a very cheeky piece of editing. The actor originally only raised the stick above his head once. The editor took the footage and rocked it back and fourth to create the illusion that the celebration had gone on much longer. At the end of Serenity Joss Whedon felt he needed to see all the soldiers at the end of the film put their weapons down (something that was never shot). When Joss shouted 'cut' luckily the cameras were still rolling. The actors naturally lowered their weapons. The editor was able to use that portion of the recording in the actual film. 

Its impossible to argue which is the most important element of filmmaking. Ultimately it is a collaborative art. It has been said a film is written 3 times. Once on the page, again during filming and finally in the editing room. 

I never enjoyed directing. A long laborious process. Often I would shoot for the edit. Getting lots of coverage. Offering little direction. Just getting plenty of variation ready for the edit. That is where I would make the film. I’m pleased to say I don’t feel that way any more. I love directing and being on set. It's one my favourite places in the world.

I still get the most pleasure from editing footage I have directed. That will never change. Its why, when pressed, I will always describe myself as an Editor/Director and not the other way round.      

Saturday 24 May 2014

Tarantino and the Death of Cinema



Recently at Cannes 2014 Tarantino made a speech about the death of cinema as he knew it. Our current generation deemed “hopeless” due to our obsession with digital film. He went on to comment that digital projection in cinemas was just television in public. “As far as I am concerned digital projection is the death of cinema.” He continued; “I’m hopeful that we’re going through a woozy, romantic period with the ease of digital, and I’m hoping that while this generation is completely hopeless, the next generation will come out and demand the real thing.”

He did concede that digital equipment is making it easier for young tenacious filmmakers to get their movies made. But questioned why established filmmakers would even bother with digital.

It isn't surprising Tarantino feels this way. It echoes the thoughts of filmmakers like Spielberg and Cinematographers like Wally Pfister.

There is a lot of inherent craft lost by not using film. From a Cinematographers point of view - the greats had to know and understand everything. For example how the colour temperature of the lights would react with a particular film stock. What it would look like without being able to see the results.

Most people don’t know that on a film camera there is no way to see the film being exposed as it is shot. The Director's monitor is only a video feed that is recorded in a separate part of the camera. This is what is used for the Director to see what is happening live and to see playback of a shot. The film itself doesn’t leave the camera until the reel ends. Lets compound the difficulty further. The Camera Operator often does not focus the camera themselves. Cameras are too big. How does the Focus Puller see when a shot is in focus? They don’t. Its done with measuring tapes and experience. No one on set knows weather a shot was in focus until the dailies are screened the next day.

It all sounds crazy doesn't it? This is how films have been shot for close to 100 years.

Digital is different. Results are instant. The monitors are a direct representation of what is happening through the lens. Focus Pullers can have their own mini monitor. There are video villages with all departments seeing exactly what is happening on screen as it is captured.


I would agree; the craft of this classic kind of filmmaking will be lost in time. I’m not sure this is what Tarantino is referring to though. I think he’s talking about aesthetic. This agreement has been going on since digital started to encrouch onto film's turf. This is a different form of the argument. One I have never heard before.

To call digital projection in cinemas "extended television" makes no logical sense to me.

I was lucky enough this week to see Pulp Fiction as part of its 20th anniversary. Not on the beach at Cannes but at my local Cine World. The screen was packed with people. The atmosphere was electric and the film, like a fine wine had only got better with age. People laughed, winced and screamed at this masterpiece of cinema… but not because it was on film. At no point was that a consideration. When it won at Cannes in 1994 everything Pulp Fiction was competing against was shot on film. It didn’t standout because it was a 35mm print. It stood out because it was brilliant. Brilliant dialogue, editing and acting. None of this was enhanced by being shot on film.

Tarantino’s rationale raises a question. All the TV shows that were shot on film - were they in fact cinema? It makes no sense. Are Directors like David Fincher not making cinema because they shoot on RED? Is Roger Deakins no longer an artist because he favours the Arri Alexa?

Tarantino has fascinating insights into cinema but that one left me a little confused.

Now I was going to the cinema to watch Days Of Future Past, but apparently all I was going to do was watch an extended tv show in somebody's living room, but pay for the privilege.  

Tuesday 25 March 2014

Six Degrees of Simply Syndicated

Out of the blue this morning I received an invitation to be a guest on Star Base 66. Utterly delighted!
SB66 joined Simply Syndicated right about the time I was getting ready to leave. These two facts are unrelated.

It got me thinking about the old days when the Simply Syndicated Network launched.

2005 feels like a lifetime ago. We were fresh out of university. Richard Smith had been pushing us for ages to do something. Anything. We just weren't sure what to do. Then Rich told us about this new thing that had begun happening with iPods. Now we're talking about a time so early in podcasting that they weren't even listed on iTunes. Apple hadn't caught wind of how their tech was being used. You had to use obscure RSS readers to pick up shows. They all had an underground pirate radio feeling to them.

What kind of show could we do?  Movies. Obviously. But we couldn't afford to go to the cinema each week. That was for people with disposable income and lives. Neither of us had two goats to rub together. So it would have to be a movie retrospective. Films that you knew you should watch but hadn't ever gotten round to. It needs a name. Movies You Should See? offered up Mr Dawson. Craig cemented the silence that followed with a pluck of his guitar string. Thus began MYSS. We began  recording 1 show a week. But who was listening right? It wasn't long before Apple cottoned on to what was happening and introduced a podcasting section to iTunes. We started getting data. Download data. Every week we would check to see if our numbers had gone up. When it got to 499 listeners I was screaming at the number to click over. Climbing the charts on Podcast Alley started to become a regular part of our week. Then when Allison Downing  joined the crew things really took off. For the next 4-5 years we recorded an episode a week of MYSS.

It became an excuse to get together and talk about film. To argue and dissect. Rich became funny. (not quite sure when that happened). I started wearing a t-shirt that had something Rich had said on it.....and other people brought it!?!

9 years later Simply Syndicated boasts its own area in the iTune Featured Providers section. Where  it sits amongst such high ranking company as ESPN, Sky, NASA and BBC. Podcasts from the deepest pits of Genre to the heights of it's Do Ask Do Tell podcast. 1000's of hours of audio, created just for the pure pleasure of it. Shows have had favourable reviews from the likes of Radio Times and The Guardian. Thats enough chest beating. The network now serves as a launch platform for promising new podcasts that might otherwise launch into obscurity.

I stepped away Simply Syndicated in 2009 to concentrate more on making films than talking about them. I've never forgotten the network. Which brings me to the point of this ramble. It wasn't until the invitation from Rick Wihtgar Tetrault this morning that I realised how much Simply Syndicated is still responsible for what I do.

I met my story mentor Adrian Reynolds on the Event Horizon episode of MYSS. "What do you do?" he enquired. "I make films," I replied. "What do you do?" I asked. "I write films" he answered. Little did I know Adrian was the script editor on a film training scheme I was already involved in.

When I look at White Lily, my latest short film, it amazes me how many elements can be traced back to the Simply Syndicated network.

CartBozMan a former Simply Syndicated listener, who started hosting his own shows, hooked me up with Pablo Hoyos - a concept artist at Rocksteady who designed the comet hunter in my film, who linked me with Bob Molesworth who offered original artwork for our KickStarter campaign. Boz is very quickly establishing a solid reputation on the independent film scene as a trusted Gaffer. Onset I think his name was being called more often than mine was!

Nick Long of Turtle Canyon Media, based at Pine Wood, offered their post production services.

The delightful Lori Bauerlein supported me by throwing her hard earned $$s my way.

One morning I was serving people in KRCS my local Apple store when a customer asked me "excuse me but are you on Movies You Should See?" It was an odd moment to say the least. That was a chap called Ashley Carter, a journalist for the Left Lion. He writes excellent film reviews for the publication. We have now become friends and are about to collaborate on our first film together.

Rich flashed the Bat Signal and had me on a few shows to plug the project....

...and of course it was a project written by Adrian Reynolds, who I'd met on Simply Syndicated all those years ago.

White Lily wouldn't have been possible without the support of Simply Syndicated. I'm truly grateful you haven't forgotten me, because I haven't forgotten you.



Movies You Should See crew recording the Lost In Translation episode (2006)



Tristan Ofield & Adrian Reynolds on the set of White Lily (2014) 



Camera crew prepare for the first of many takes



Camera Assistant Oliver Walker and 3rd Assistant Director CartBozman
set up the Sony F35 




Actress Siddhii Lagrutta & Tristan Ofield chat between setups




Actor David McCaffery. Shot lit by NFTS Cinematographer Alistair Little




 Actress Siddhii Lagrutta lit by NFTS Cinematographer Alistair Little




The Crew of White Lily

Left to right Sarah Kelly, Tristan Ofield, Siddhii Lagrutta, Sophia Ramcharan, Heather Jordan, 
Fiona Allardyce, Ahmed Tarek, Adrian Reynolds, Oli Robinson, Ellie Wake, David McCaffrey,
Arti Sharma, Donna Bowyer, Max Crow, Josh Knott-Fayle, Ashley Carter, CartBozMan, Oliver Walker, Alistair Little. 

Photograph by Mike Saunders