Where's the cut? Before or after the beat?

I heard someone say, but I forget how it goes: When cutting to a beat you lead slightly with video or sound? I think it was video because the eye sees faster than the ear hears. Or was it the other way around? I know I should know, but, uh, I don't....

Thanks.

Always after, or on. Never before. This is why you can be one frame off sync with the audio late and it look OK...but really odd if it is one frame early.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Billie Holiday used to sing behind the note and ahead of the note -- in the same song. That's what I heard. I don't know if this is relevant though; I thought I'd mention it though just in case :-)

I completely disagree with Shane on this one. The cut can be before or after the beat, but you'd only want to cut dead on the beat sparingly.

If you cut before the beat, the musician/dancer is just about to move to the beat, and s/he hits it, which creates excitement. The move is the motivation for the cut -- you cut so that you can see the move. In non-music-event cutting, a great example is when Kate Hudson winks during Patrick Fugit's "carousel" seduction scene in Almost Famous. Mark Helfrich and Cameron Crowe cut just before the harmonic in the music hits, so that Kate Hudson can then move to hit that beat.

If you cut after the beat, the musician/dancer/actor has just finished moving to the beat, so you can move on. The end of the movement is the motivation for the cut. You cut because the move is over. For example, when a drummer hits his cymbal or does a series of dramatic snare pounds, most of the time you'd want to let him finish his actions before cutting away, or it feels incomplete.

If you cut dead on the beat, you're interrupting the musician/dancer/actor's synced movement, which is often like putting a joint where a muscle should be. And it is synced movement coupled with the sound that creates the sense of rhythm, the "dance" -- not cuts. Look at John Woo -- he lets his onscreen characters hit certain beats in his rhythm, and his cuts facilitate the hits, they don't pinpoint and interrupt the beats.

Cutting on the beat can be effective, but if you're doing it obsessively for more than a bar or two, then you're letting the music dictate the cutting, and your visuals will almost certainly be off. And it's very robotic. Within every 4/4 beat there are 1/8ths, 1/16ths, even 1/32ths in polyrhythmic units. You don't have to cut dead on the beat to make excitement.


www.derekmok.com

Quote

Billie Holiday used to sing behind the note and ahead of the note -- in the same song. That's what I heard. I don't know if this is relevant though; I thought I'd mention it though just in case :-)

? ? ?

Anyway, cutting is an art. I personally have never used a "standard cutting style". I tend not to cut directly ON the beat unless the cut is necessary to the point I am trying to get across... but I have cut on the beat (just as everyone else here has at some point). I tend to use moments in a clip to hit on a beat (an emotional move, an expression, a physical action, etc) cutting in much sooner & timing it out. It's not just about "the beat".

Don't be so clinical... just have fun with it, man.

- Joey

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Good points Derek.

And what Joe said, it is often LESS interesting to cut on the beat than to cut off the beat. I saw what has to be the best concert video I have seen in a while, BULLET IN A BIBLE by GREEN DAY, and not once did they cut on the beat.

My point only has to do with sync I suppose...


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Just goes to prove most editors are Off Beat.

> I tend not to cut directly ON the beat unless the cut is necessary to the point I am trying to
> get across... but I have cut on the beat (just as everyone else here has at some point).

I agree with Joe. The problem is that inexperienced viewers, producers, clients etc. think that they want dead-on-the-beat cutting when what they want is an overall flow that gets across the vibe of the music. And that means off the beat cutting -- that means letting onscreen actions hit the beats, not the cuts themselves. Look at Janet Jackson's "Miss You Much" or Michael Jackson's "Smooth Criminal" and "Bad", or Bobby Brown's "Every Little Step". Just name me even one dance video made in the last 15 years that even comes close to the almost mythical energy in those videos. For a slower example, Queensryche's "Silent Lucidity" and R.E.M.'s "Losing My Religion".

A spec music video I did with a friend of mine blew the record company and the band's management away. Not once did they ask whether we could cut to the beat more, because the guitar player, singer and drummer were already hitting the beats. If you show them how it should be done, they'll recognize the point.

> My point only has to do with sync I suppose...

Great point, though. There is a difference between image-ahead and sound-ahead when dealing with sync offset.

> Don't be so clinical... just have fun with it, man.

A combination of hard, cold, analytical technique must always be liberated by healthy, organic, gut "feel". I don't think you can have good editing without one or the other!


www.derekmok.com

I cut to the beat, then I use the roll tool and roll in the negative direction so that I can see the action hit the beat. But on music vids I might hit the beat in a little section (or not). Many music vids nowadays do not have any cuts directly on the beat.

Kevin Monahan
Social Support Lead, DV Products
Adobe
Adobe After Effects
Adobe Premiere Pro
Adobe After Effects and Premiere Pro Community Blog
Follow Me on Twitter!

I was going to say all that but there are so many exceptions to the rules that I decided not to. LOL

I think one can cut any way they like as long as they can justify it, and if they have control of the project then they're right regardless of how they cut.

Then in the case of music videos there are no rules and that's not a rule :-)

But I agree cutting is an art. I never get tired hearing people talking about cutting or editing movies because to me that's the most essential part of filmmaking.

I think you must take into account the feel of the piece, what effect you want to have on the viewer, just like you would in any other edit.

For instance cutting before the beat can give a slightly erratic and quirky edge especially if it jars with the beat.

Cutting on the beat as Derek points out can feel robotic but if you require this then its perfect. A good example would be a seriously heavy regimented drum beat like a White Stripes track or fast paced techno/dance et al.

For something a little more laid back, try cutting after the beat, this can feel more relaxed and the further away (upto the mid point of the rhythm) from the beat you go the more lazy/mellow it should feel.

Of course cutting on/close to the beat is one thing, getting some action synced up with the beat is also something I feel is essential especially in a music video.

Look at the video for 'Can't get you out of my head' by Kyle Minogue. [www.clipland.com] a real mix of on beat cutting and and on beat actions and of course Kyle in a skimpy white dress.

A really good way of testing the on/off beat comparison out would be to make a light/dark flash track.

By this I mean:

? Lay down your track

? Overlay a colour matte

? Play the sequence with the matte selected/highlighted

? Listen to the music and press M to mark the cut points in your own personal rhythm then cut out with the blade tool every other mark so you end up with an on/off flashing light/dark video cut to the music.

? This can then be used to overlay your video cuts by lining up the in/out over the light/dark clips

? To get it more regimented - show the audio waveform and adjust the edits to the main beats using the roll tool or selecting the clip edges and dragging them into position over the peaks (if you can see them, unlikely in a Death metal track )


I would try this with a couple of pieces of music and see the effect you get.

Go with your gut feeling and if its wrong, adjust it until it feels right.


Ben

But to answer you question:

Quote

eye sees faster than the ear hears

Light travels faster than sound by a massive amount, but at close range an audiovisual experience should feel synced, maybe if you stand at the back of a stadium listening to the video then you might get a slight delay in sound.

Speed of Sound: 1238 km/h or 770 mph (under normal atmospheric conditions)

Speed of Light: 1,079,252,848.8 km/h or 670,616,629.384 mph (in a vacuum)



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Rule number one...there are no rules. Rule number two..see rule number one. Charlie Watts played behind the beat...Keith never complained...same principle...what floats the boat is what should go to tape.

Quote

I never get tired hearing people talking about cutting or editing movies because to me that's the most essential part of filmmaking.

Sorry to go on an OT rant with this, but I couldn't DISAGREE with that more...

Discussing cutting & techniques is one thing... but cutting is definitely not "THE MOST ESSENTIAL PART of filmmaking". It is simply another piece of skilled TEAMWORK needed to complete the project puzzle. Editing can't save lousy shooting, lighting, blocking and can almost NEVER save really bad performances. Editing cannot remove that boom mic that the hungover P.A. dropped into the shot. You need a competent DP & Audio Recordist / Post Engineer, Colorists, Visual FX Arists, etc. You see...you need SKILLED PEOPLE (plural) to make a film.

Some very ambitious people seem to think that the "one man band" approach is all you need for filmaking... that one job is more important than the other. A pool of talented people working together is needed to create a great project. All I can say is that the "one man band" approach always shows in the final piece.

OT rant over.

FWIW, I have a little "music vid" trick I use (VFX...not cutting) sometimes in After Effects called "Convert Audio To Keyframes". This converts an audio track's amplitude into a keyframed Null Object that can be used for animating elements to the audio amplitude.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

> It is simply another piece of skilled TEAMWORK needed to complete the project puzzle.

Let's also not forget the work of a dedicated producer. Sure, the producer is often the director, DP and editor's opponent creatively, but no money, no film, A good producer on a film shepherds the entire effort, helps the obsessive director, hires the right post-production supervisor, gets that extra assistant editorial needs. The director is not the be-all-end-all and the editor certainly is not. That doesn't take away from the efforts of any other crew member. Hell, try doing a film without a good production designer or art director.


www.derekmok.com

> Rule number one...there are no rules. Rule number two..see rule number one. Charlie Watts
> played behind the beat...

Ah, but you and filmman are confusing the performance with the editing.

If Charlie Watts is playing behind the perceived beat, then in editing, you should most likely be cutting right before or after his stick hits the drum/cymbal. Because he is the beat. If Billie Holiday is singing a little ahead of the beat, then you have to make sure you cut it to include her best performances, whether it coincides with the "count" of the song or not.

Those are the beats I'm talking about.

Look at Martin Scorsese's The Last Waltz. Robbie Robertson's taut guitar style makes him often play ahead of the beat. So when you're cutting to him, the beats are not what Levon Helm is playing. They are the notes Robertson is playing, and you'd probably want to cut just a little before he hits that guitar phrase so you can catch him launching into it.

And then take a dramatic performance with no music. There are still "beats". Acting beats. You cut right before them, or you cut out of the shot after they're done, or both. Not dead on the beat so you interrupt the actor.

Motivation.


www.derekmok.com

But an artist is supposed to follow the beat of his own drum, no. LOL ... which entails doing everything yourself -- if you want to work as an artist.

If you're given 120,000,000 dollars to do a movie, you can't be an artist; they'll put you in jail. LOL You can't put all the money in your pocket and do an Andy Warhol. Naturally you hire all the academy award winners in every category and buy yourself a box of cigars and play the producer :-)

But seriously, I think the editor should make the movie sing. The shots are the words that the poet sings. Or something like that :-)

But I agree with Joey because Joey speaks from his gut. I like that about an editor. What you see is what you get sort of thing, you know?

<! ... Don't be so clinical... just have fun with it, man.

- Joey>

Derek as always makes good points, but the end result of an editing job is whether the movie plays or not.

The technique that Ben outlined is an excellent way to analyze the workings of a music video. I love music videos because they're usually at the cutting edge of the editor's art.

I think editing with respect to the beat is one of the elements of editing the picture track. If you want to understand all the elements of editing movies, pick up a book by Sergei Eisenstein and you'll have the whole ball of wax. (He made sound movies too. LOL)

> But an artist is supposed to follow the beat of his own drum, no.

Sure. It's especially appealing when that "artist" is Ed Wood, or Andy Milligan.

A director who never listens to anyone else, just because those ideas didn't come from him/her, is very often just trapped in his/her own little world. There's a term for that -- narcissism.

Artistic vision can co-exist with collaboration. Especially if you pick your collaborators well.

> which entails doing everything yourself -- if you want to work as an artist.

Most of the world's active filmmakers would disagree with that. Just because you get a great DP to do the lighting on a film you're directing doesn't make you any less of a director. Just because Bob Dylan got Scarlet Rivera to play violin on Desire doesn't mean it's not his album. Just because Barbara Kopple didn't operate the main camera doesn't mean American Dream is any less of a classic, or any less of a Barbara Kopple film. It just means these people had the vision to realize the value of collaboration.

> If you're given 120,000,000 dollars to do a movie, you can't be an artist; they'll put you in
> jail.

Then I'm quite sure most filmmakers won't mind not being an "artist" by your definition.

U2 has two out of the Top 5 grossing tours of all time. The band still writes great songs. The idea that money is antithetical to creativity is the erroneous generalization of someone who doesn't have money.

You don't absolutely need money to be creative. But having money doesn't mean you're not creative.

> the end result of an editing job is whether the movie plays or not.

And how do you judge that? Every amateur filmmaker probably thinks his/her first completed film is a masterpiece. Wait five years and a whole lot of experience, s/he would look on that film and (hopefully) think it's crap. So does the movie "play"? Does that make the amateur filmmaker more of an artist when starting out than when s/he has had five years of experience?

There are standards of quality. And being technically analytical is complementary to gut feeling, not antithetical to it. If you have a cut you like, but the director doesn't, you have to be able to make lucid arguments about why you like your editing decisions. Just saying "But my cut is great, it plays" is not going to convince anyone to go your way. You need to be able to explain in logical terms (even if it's an emotion you're trying to describe) what makes your cut work.


www.derekmok.com

Great discussion. I welcome recommendations:

1. Books and resources on editing fundamentals.
2. Examples of good and bad editing.

Thank you in advance,

Frank

OK...last OT rant then I'm out (can't help it...filman brings out the BEST in me):

filman...you think that in order to be an "Artist", you have to work alone?? Where do you get these incredibly twisted off-the-wall ideals from?? Is Orson Wells an Artist? Spielberg? DePalma? Coppola? Scorcese? Wilder? Nichols? Lucas? Rodriguez? Fincher? According to you they are not because guess what... on every project they surround themselves with THE MOST TALENTED crews around (and plenty of them VOLUNTEER just to be in their presence) and you know why... so these GIANTS can concentrate on creating the visions that we all love and not be bothered with the technical stuff. Do you think Ron Howard is up until 4:00 AM trying to figure out how to get Compressor to squeeze a clean MPEG2 out of his Quad? Get real, man. If you WANT to do all the jobs associated with filmmaking - knock yourself out...but DO NOT say that "only Artists work alone". That's just untrue...period.

This "One-Man-Band" Artist stuff may work for painters & sculptors... but filmmakers (GOOD ONES) need the assistance of a talented team no matter how you say it - and no matter how many "LOL's" and :-)'s you use.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Love this question, it is SO WIDE OPEN to interpretation!

OK: define the bloody BEAT! I have cut loads of music videos and dance pieces, and I am a musician. The most creative I ever got with editing to music was a favor-job for a video-stylist friend. Her source tapes: finished music videos she had styled from ALL genres! Country, Rap, R&B, House, Heavy Funk, Cool Jazz, Hot jazz, metal, etc.

The clips, being from MTV style vids, were like one second long, max. The music she chose: Thelonious Monk! The beat was elusive, passionate, and changing. I made country stars dance to the beat, Herb Alpert blow his horn to the horn to the horn, etc. A tight weave. I got more work from that reel, you never know when a freebie is actually a great thing. She'd show it around and they'd ask who cut it and then I'd get the job... those were the days, when music videos had budgets.

NB: having a consistant, steady beat can be a BORE.

HAVE FUN with music, play, and experiment. You can set up an expectation with cutting on the beat, and then break it by holding a shot over a stretch.

And it is SO RELATIVE - what is the action? Do you want to create a mood of discomfort or comfort?

Sorry if I am ranting, I just cut 6 videos in 3 days, and that translates into no sleep. Why am I still doing this at my age? Oy Vey!

Marla-wired and tired in  NY
PS-I tried to drink wine, thinking it might help me sleep in the middle of the day (something I am very bad at) - but now I'm just wired, tired, and tipsy... uh oh!

Skoal, Marla! You're an artist!

I'd like to make a suggestion, Vic...remember that you are in an editing forum. Lots of editors here. Editors who are not directing their own projects. Plus graphics experts, video engineers, directors who don't edit, directors who don't light, editors who don't shoot, editors who don't do graphics, and so on, and so on. Coming in and basically saying "only people who do it all are artists" may not exactly sit well with at least parts of this crowd.

I'm only speaking from my perspective. I really don't care for the "artist" tag, but I don't think it's a good idea to just say "nobody here is an artist". Seems a little like strolling into SAG and yelling, at the top of your voice, "All actors are cattle!"

You can believe that all you want. And keep trying to do all the jobs as you want -- prove us wrong and show that you can do all of the writing, directing, producing, acting, editing, lighting, camera operation, sound mix, production management, special effects, storyboarding, sound design, foleying, production design, music composition, onlining, colour correction, titles design, graphics, print materials, DVD design, web design, media encoding on your own films, and do it better than specialists can. But don't devalue what other people do, intentionally or not.


www.derekmok.com

But of course I didn't mean that. I'm the one you're trying to put down as a guy who likes to do it all -- a one man bad, okay, I don't mind the comparison. I've enjoyed many a time a guy playing all the instruments. I don't know if you've ever seen one but it's quite an experience.

There are people in this forum who like to make movies like me as well. I don't think we should put them down either. Of course, I have the utmost respect for experts in the field: editors, cinematographers, and other technicians. Your list is a good one. I respect them all. I've made my living for 35 years in the film business, of course I respect them. I've worked as a DP and film editor, and still do. I'm new to FCP and NLE, so I'd like to learn from people like you, whom I admire greatly, I really do. You're one of the guys who really has it together, and I've often thought it would be a great experience to let you get involved in one of my projects at the script stage because of your ability to size up all the aspects of a movie (I'm not trying to flatter you); you've demonstrated your brilliance in many threads. When I see your posts, I read them, even when I don't know what you're talking about ... due to my ignorance of most technical matters with respect to NLE.

Believe it or not, I agree with many things you say even when I argue the other side of the issue :-) I like a heated discussion on artistic matters.

I enjoy this forum and I don't want anybody to think that I'm here to insult anybody or to cast aspersions.

There's one issue I won't agree with you on and that's the right of a filmmaker to make a movie by himself or herself. You can argue all you want that movie making is collaborative, but there are filmmakers who work alone, and I don't have to give examples. You know there are, so I don't know why you even argue the matter.

This post was about cutting to the beat and all I said was that Billie Holiday used to sing ahead of the note or behind the note, as she sang. It was as if she was editing her own song, which is relevant to the discussion I think, and the whole issue was taken out of context.

In the final analysis I think Shane was more correct; cutting after the beat in the great majority of the cases is better.

...just when I get out...he PUUUUUULLS ME BACK IN:

Quote

But of course I didn't mean that.

...then what did you mean, filman? We are NOT mind readers or interpreters of your writing style...we are ARTISTS, STORYTELLERS & CREATORS. You do a lot of posting before you think. You keep saying you respect me because I speak from my gut. You don't see me backing off anything I say, right? When you say something...have the conviction of knowing what you are talking about and believe it before posting it - then stick to it.

Quote

I like a heated discussion on artistic matters.

You should...you start them all the time. You post one thing then say it was taken out of context. You seem to always say controversial things "that you don't mean" off the cuff then cover it all up with a "LOL" or a :-) and all is peachy in filmanland.

Quote

I enjoy this forum and I don't want anybody to think that I'm here to insult anybody or to cast aspersions.

...but you just DID insult people and you don't even see it do you? When you say:

Quote

But an artist is supposed to follow the beat of his own drum, no. LOL ... which entails doing everything yourself -- if you want to work as an artist. If you're given 120,000,000 dollars to do a movie, you can't be an artist

You just referred to filmmakers with $$$ as non-Artists. You just referred anyone that doesn't "do everything yourself" as a non-Artist. Derek is being very politically correct because he has to...he's a moderator. He is the perfect vindication for me saying what I need to say because it means that I am not alone in the way I am feeling right now.

I am an Artist first - Editor second and I don't appreciate your comments, filman. I earned that moniker through years of hard (team) work coming up through the system in a small market and it's tossed away by you in one sentence. In your eyes, an "Artist" has to be starving to be an Artist? An "Artist" has to do it all jobs by himself to be an "Artist"? If you are going to make these claims in a public forum, you better be ready to defend them because some Artists will confront you about it. You don't have the right or (according to your post history) broad enough industry experience to make such a blanket statement about what defines an Artist.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Personally, I get BORED BORED BORED talking about editing.

BUT,

I teach basic FCP skills once or twice a year to "New Media" students and beginners at an artists Video co-op. There's always one person who wants to know whether you have to cut on action or has read the Murch book and wants to know what I think about actors blinking and monkey DNA. I smile and try to seem interested while I wait for them to finish and say something like this....(take a deep breath now)

"Hey, it's a new art form, there are a million ways to use it. Some people need rules because that's how you build a curriculum or sell textbooks (Dead Poets Society). Some people love to make up witty little sayings to encapsulate a learned instinctual skill (It isn't where you cut it's where you don't cut... etc) whatever! Every thing you can think of has been done in the name of trying to make a job that's difficult to explain to people more easy to grasp and sell more software.
Here's the thing though, the rules, of which they never were any, have changed so many times that trying to build your knowledge of editing by learning rules or sticking to learned guidelines is pointless. Start with what feels good once, judge how people a.k.a. THE AUDIENCE react and modify your knowledge based on your goals. Do that a million times and you might be getting better at the thing you have chosen to do. When you think you are done learning there's an old age home just outside the edit room door that has a space at the bingo table reserved for you. There will be an even older person at the table who wants to talk about the movie they played last night in the common area, cut to c/u on your face as you let loose a single tear of recognition that learning doesn't ever stop, music swells, fade out"

Deep breath and then I start with Apple-1,2,3,4 and the basics of FCP. It's not always the same diatribe but the intent is the same. Of course I swear a lot more than what I've written here because they can tell that I mean it that way and I am naturally prone to "working blue". I tell them to watch as many DVD extra features as they can stomach and watch out for the person at their next party who wants to waste valuable imbibing time talking about their 4th year film school paper or about what makes something funny. Life is too short for that. You have already chosen a profession that expects you to spend long hours in a dark room. Make good use of the light.

Most words I have ever written about editing ever.
ak

ak
Sleeplings, AWAKE!

> Personally, I get BORED BORED BORED talking about editing.

And probably non-filmmakers get the most easily bored listening to this most unglamorous aspect of filmmaking.

I'm probably from the opposite end of the spectrum. I talk about editing a lot. I revisit points, I clarify, I rationalize, I verbally explore and argue. And not necessarily with another person. Arguing with myself about why a cut works (or doesn't) helps me clarify why I'm changing something, or not changing something. And it's good practice when I have to communicate with a director or producer.

Those of us who have edited a lot, we all know that there's an X-factor in editing that connects to individualism and feel. However, that X-factor is intangible by definition. And I find that if we defer the entire process to gut feeling and individuality, then we lose perspective of any sense of objective standards.

Just because rules and theories don't apply all the time doesn't mean they're not valuable. Not just in teaching, but in our everyday work. We know our senses lie, but try going through life if you rule them out.

So I would argue that we still need to study rules and form generalizations about editing. They are important tools. Otherwise we're no better than first-year film students who do everything by gut and then, four years later, discover just how problematic their gut feeling was in the beginning.

And no, we don't stop learning. That's the beauty of it. But if one has an existentialist tendency to deny any kind of theorizing, then one has no basis for any improvement at all.

Form rules. Modify them. Break them. But you can't do any of this without first accepting some truths. Can't challenge or improve what you don't grasp.


www.derekmok.com

I cut pretty much exclusively music videos. In particular, I cut a lot of live performances. I get a lot of compliments on my cutting from label execs who watch music videos all day long, so I like to think I'm doing something right.

I cut in front of the beat (early), I cut on the beat (exactly), and sometimes I cut late. It all depends, and I have reasons for each.

When I have a performance where the tempo is fast, but somehow the visuals are lacking and not as exciting as I wish they were, often I'll cut maybe 3 frames ahead of every beat. Drummers call this "pushing". You can't do this for too long though, because it gets tiring and anxious feeling. Cutting late doesn't happen as often, because it doesn't have the opposite effect...if I do that I do it for reasons mentioned by another poster above, which is to make a match cut/body movement read better.

As far as cutting on the beat too often, yes there is such a thing I think, but I can often mix it up enough to stay fresh by mixing up the beat I cut on. You can go a measure cutting on 2, and then when the time is right start cutting on say, the upbeat of 4. That way you can continue on the beat without becoming predictable. Sometimes I cut on triplets...the process of creating your own beat between the lines.

I went through a phase where I tried avoiding cutting on the beat, but everything just felt random then. It's ok if the motion onstage is driving the cuts then, but if that isn't happening either, then it's just random for the sake of random and that's no good, is it?

I'm just now realizing this that a lot of my best friends/roomates growing up were drummers. I had no idea I picked up so much from them!

So i'm joining the debate late and I don't want to drag it back down to soemthing that's upsetting people but you all got to put in your two pence worth and i'm at work and bored so i'm going to do the same.

Ages ago a friend of mine was talking about auteurs and how she respected them and all that stuff and she said (and this may not be true) that in his films, Kubrick did all the lighting and all the shooting and just about everything else except the acting. My immediate thought (I hadn't done much filmmaking at the time, i've done more now and this is still my immediate thought) was why?

Everyone has different opinions about this but I personally think that the reason people try to do everything is because they don't trust others to do it as well as they think they can. This might be because they're control freaks or because they're geniuses and have a deeper understanding of evey aspect of filmmaking than everyone else in the world (doesn't seem likely) but really it's just because they don't trust anyone to do somethign for them. Or, I suppose, it appeals to their ego and they can say to themselves "I did that all on my own, i'm so great" I can't really see why these people would want to make films. It is probably the most collaborative art that I can think of in terms of different skills and people it involves. Someone might be absolutely amazing at writing, acting, directing, camera work and editing (I've missed out other key roles cos i think this is about as bare boned a crew as you can get away with) but my question still remains. Why would you want to do it all? It'll be so much harder and take so much longer. Where is the incentive? Why not just go write a book, paint a picture, sculpt, mime or dance. Filming needs either lots of people or lots of time. You'd need a massive reason to want to make it hard on yourself and try to do it all alone and I can't help feeling that reason is ego more often than genius.

Sorry if that offends. It's my opinion and i'll stand by it. If anyone has any good reasons why someone should make a film on their own I'd be interested to hear it but I should add that if you just say "artistic integrity" or some such that's not a defence; it's a new theory and i'll need you to expand on why doing everything adds "artistic integrity". Does it perhaps just show an inability to communicate what you want to the rest of the crew? Or an impatience with people for not understanding what you mean which leads to you wanting to do everything? Can artistic integrity not be found in collaboration? Why? The theory implies, by definition that individual effort is more "artistic" than a group effort. Either you'll have to convince me that this is the case or come up with something better.

Cheers all, hope you're having a good day and that you are surrounded by good people who make your job easier and contribute to wha you are trying to achieve. I am not. My boss sucks. If anyone knows of any jobs on the go in london, please let me know ;-)

Maybe I should have added the smiley. I'm serious. I need a new job.

Thank you, Direktor, for acknowledging that the downbeat is not the only beat worth considering. I do the triplet thing too, makes it swing like jazz.

And one case for making a film alone is if you happen to be doing experimental animation. I used to do stop motion films, and it was a blast "doing it all," but on a very small scale... But then again, I admit I was a control freak at the time. Now I value my collaborators and wish I had more of them!

Best,

Marla

> I do the triplet thing too, makes it swing like jazz.

Even more so...reggae! Upbeat is fun, mon. If the onscreen person is moving on the downbeat, it'd be silly to ignore him/her and cut based on the downbeat. Again, it's all about cutting image according to how the images want to be cut, rather than letting music dictate.


www.derekmok.com