FCP is a revolution in editing for the indie filmmaker, but are movies the better for it?

I started out editing on the Upright Moviolas in the late 60s as a student at San Francisco State -- we had six of them, and some of us spent our whole day cutting away. Then when I worked in Norway for the next five years after graduating, I fell in love with the Steenbechs and the Kems. There was a major controversy for years over which were the best editing machines. The American editors prefered the Moviolas and the European editors prefered the flatbeds. The controversy was never resolved; but finally video editing came along and most indie editors jumped ship.

Now with the avalanche of NLE editing systems and especially FCP, anybody can edit their own movie. A lot of directors and producers are editing their own movies. The old time editors are dying off and leaving an expanding arena for a new crop of editors.

A professional editor is still the best person to edit a feature film, but I believe too many movies are being edited by non-editors cutting their teeth on FCP and Avid.

When I go to the cinema I notice that movies aren't edited as well. I think there is a factor at play here: maybe with the ease and prevelance of NLE editing systems, the art of editing is the worse for it, and ultimately the movies are worse for it.

I wonder what you think about all this. I'm curious as to your comments. As a filmmaker, making a personal film, I believe in cutting it myself; but if I'm making a collaborative film (which is the most common form), I believe in hiring an editor. An experienced editor, who has cut at least a couple of feature films, can see things that I can't see as a director, because there are certain types of blind spots to directing and later editing certain scenes that require an outside point of reference.

> I wonder what you think about all this. I'm curious as to your comments. As a filmmaker,
> making a personal film, I believe in cutting it myself; but if I'm making a collaborative film
> (which is the most common form), I believe in hiring an editor.

You're talking about film philosophy, and there is no absolute in that category. But as in the last time you posted in here asking for comments, I still believe you're thinking about this the wrong way.

Just because you have a DP and an editor working on your film doesn't make it "less personal". "Personal" films are such because of their script, the acting, the characters, the overall treatment. Not because it has been edited by a professional. Look at Munich. Spielberg had Janusz Kaminski and Michael Kahn, but did that make the film any less personal? Not at all. The message of the film, the tone, the spirit have Spielberg's handprints all over it. The only differences are that with Kaminski and Kahn on board, Spielberg got better lighting, camera and editing than if he had tried to do it himself. Not having to deal with the minutiae of those jobs allowed him to do what he's supposed to as a director: Oversee all departments without being lost in any one. And as specific as Spielberg's shots are, he didn't feel the need to hog the DP and editing credits.

You're treating "personal" and "collaborative" films as if they were genres. The fact is, almost all films are collaborative in one way or another. Even your own film had actors contributing, and because you had tried to do all the jobs yourself, their contributions were fatally hurt because you couldn't or didn't want to record sync sound. If you had only had one more person on set, either recording sound or operating camera (so that you could record sound -- as Barbara Kopple did on her documentaries), your actors would have come off so much better...and by extension, the director looks good. Any film, "personal" or "commercial", can benefit from having professionals work on them. And professionals by and large are all versed in interpreting the director's vision and using their considerable skills and experience to express that vision, often better than the director himself can in their specific departments. So, the difference between having a professional crew and doing everything "DIY" isn't whether you come up with a personal film or not; it's whether you come up with a good film or not.

As for the decline of editing, it's a convenient assessment to make, but it's not that simple. The palette of editing techniques has been expanded since the inception of film. While editors in the older days probably had fewer ways to execute something, making it necessary for them to "see" the cut before they make it, that doesn't mean today's editors can't do the same. And also, editing is not an easy field in which to compare talents. Chaplin's films had no cuts because they didn't have the convention of coverage; but can you say that "One A.M." is really worse than Clerks in terms of editing? Akira Kurosawa, in Seven Samurai, did a lot of perfect match cuts with direct punch-ins from wide to medium, from medium to close-up, with no angle change, just a different lens or camera position. Such cuts, prevalent in films before the 1960s, would be considered quaint and outdated today. But in those days when that was the norm, can you say it was bad editing? Just because the general taste in techniques changed and evolved doesn't mean the older films were not as well cut. Conversely, it's too convenient to say that today's editing styles are "better" than yesterday's. Today, we are prepared for a fire-and-brimstone, deliberately inept sequence such as the migraine-inducing opening sequence of Narc. In 1938, it probably would have been laughed out of the theatre.


www.derekmok.com

editors can't help watching cuts :-)

What you say is very informative. You take up serveral points, and I won't be able to reply to every one of them. I think you misunderstood my post a little, but it's okay, because what you say is interesting. I'm happy to hear that film schools are still teaching the classical style of editing. If you remember I made a note of the fact that I've cut on Moviolas and flatbeds. I still like to cut on them, with perforated tape, splicers, and, yes, I even use scissors sometimes, when I want to splice a word between sprockets (especially in 16mm :-)

I agree with you about breaking the rules; I think rules shouldn't be broken just for the sake of breaking them. There is such a thing as film language and there are certain conventions that should be respected (like changing the angle a bit when going from a medium shot to a close-up -- not the get a jump cut, even though sometimes only slightly--since you mentioned this regarding Kurosawa).

Of course there are hundreds if not thousands of editing rules for cutting picture alone. ... My point with the post is to find out if professional feature film editors are taking advantage of editing systems like FCP. I think it's a boon for serious editors. The problem is there are a lot of amateurs getting into editing and this is why, I believe, we have the emergence of bad editing in even commercially successful movies. I don't have to come up with examples to illustrate this point; you've in fact come up with an example yourself.

I don't care to defend my personal filmmaking style, especially based on a trailer I attempted to edit while struggling to learn FCP -- the one I posted -- because as someone wisely pointed out, no one has seen the whole movie and reaching a decision about my directing, cinematography and editing are all premature. I'd love to screen the movie for you, because frankly I think you're a brilliant film technician. I haven't seen enough of your work to call you an artist yet -- forgive me.

I think you're wrong about personal film and collaborative film. I don't think your definitions are valid, because they seem to be based on a narrow range of experience on your part. It sounds to me that you haven't edited many feature films, not for European directors at any rate. You have a lot of knowledge, but most of it is based on reading and watching movies. Although discussing editorial techniques and styles can be made by even non-editors, I think that editors who have worked on feature films for many years have a bit more relaxed attitude about what a filmmaker chooses to do with his or her film.

I like to shoot camera and record sound separately. I haven't done it a lot. In fact, this last feature I did is the first time I did a whole feature using an MOS camera. I had done a lot of wild lines and I find shooting an MOS camera and recording wild lines sometimes saves time and money when the scene is short or is difficult to shoot with a sync sound camera because of logistics.

Federico Fellini is definitely my favorite director, and he shot everything MOS. There is no getting away from the fact that he is regarded as one of the greatest filmmakers ever. In my book he is number one.

And it's not absolutely based on the fact that he shot MOS. It's the fact that he wished to control the dialogue and soundtrack separately from the picture. I'm not saying I shoot like him. Frankly, I never worked with big budgets like him. So I can't achieve the same technical standard as he did with his cinematographer Vittorio Storaro. Nevertheless, as an independent filmmaker shooting with my own resources I can make artistic movies that I can control all the elements, and if they fall short technically it doesn't bother me as it used to when I first stated out. I really regret I was such a stickler for excellent technicals; it prevented me from making many more movies. That's one regret I'm going to address by making my own personal movies. Spielberg doesn't make personal movies -- I am sorry I have to laugh. ... Forgive me, but a $100,000,000.00 dollar movie is not a personal movie by my definition.

> I don't care to defend my personal filmmaking style, especially based on a trailer I attempted > to edit while struggling to learn FCP -- the one I posted -- because as someone wisely pointed > out, no one has seen the whole movie and reaching a decision about my directing,
> cinematography and editing are all premature.

Fair enough. However, for the classical kind of feature narrative filmmaking, you really don't need to know very much about the editing application to be able to cut scenes together. I had to learn Avid XPress Pro (after a four-year lapse, back when I had used Avid DV XPress in 2002) to cut a short film for two friends last week. Half a day of orientation, then off I went. Not even close to as comfortable as Final Cut Pro, but the editing was the important thing, not the computer program. As Shane said several days ago, the editor matters a lot more than the platform.

> I'd love to screen the movie for you, because frankly I think you're a brilliant film technician.
> I haven't seen enough of your work to call you an artist yet -- forgive me.

Look at www.derekmok.com if you want to see samples. If I have the right to comment on your work, you should certainly have the right to comment on mine.

> I think that editors who have worked on feature films for many years have a bit more relaxed
> attitude about what a filmmaker chooses to do with his or her film.

Possibly -- though a full 50 to 60 per cent of filmmakers I've met who have tried to cut their own film have had their eyes opened when they opened up to getting a different editor. And not always me -- the films always improved to some degree.

> And it's not absolutely based on the fact that he shot MOS. It's the fact that he wished to
> control the dialogue and soundtrack separately from the picture.

Sure you can still ADR your entire film if you choose, even though most directors don't do that.
What we were pointing out was that by not recording *anything* on set, you left yourself no choice. Even after recording location dialogue, you *still* could have replaced it afterwards if you wanted to, though I have *never* seen an ADR performance beat an on-set performance unless we're talking about a really horrible actor whose entire voice was being replaced by another actor.

> Spielberg doesn't make personal movies -- I am sorry I have to laugh. ... Forgive me, but a
> $100,000,000.00 dollar movie is not a personal movie by my definition.

Then let me use another example: Boys Don't Cry. An intensely personal film done for a very low budget. From what I've heard, at the end of editing, Kimberly Peirce produced a four-hour cut that traced Brandon Teena's entire life from childhood. Lee Percy, a wonderful editor with varied credentials (ranging from The Re-Animator to Single White Female), was brought in, and they whacked it down to two hours without losing the personal touch, the great Hilary Swank performance, or expressions of Teena's character. Lee Percy just made it into a much better story by starting it as late as possible without sacrificing character and story. And Peirce's vision wasn't lost; it was amplified by the collaboration, and Lee made her look great by disciplining her film, focusing her intentions.

In my own narrative editing, I've always aimed to clear the path for the best work of the others to come through, to put the director, actors, DP, production designer etc. in the best light possible. I think I've mostly succeeded in making them look good while aiming to be the seam holding their virtues together. So when my main directing partner entrusts his work to me, my goal is to help make the best "Randall Dottin" film possible -- to preserve and amplify his vision, not to dilute it. And so back to my original point: Good creative collaborators clarify the director's vision, often better than the director can in those specific fields, because collaboration frees up the director to fill the role of leader rather than micro-manager.

> I haven't seen enough of your work to call you an artist yet -- forgive me.

All fine by me, because I've never put much importance on the term "artist". Seems a bit lofty for my taste. All I care about is doing the creative work well, whether it's a commercial or a DP reel or a PSA or a narrative film.


www.derekmok.com

vic, as usual i think youre focusing WAY to much on what YOU consider a "new technlology." ive been using NLE's in one form or another since like 1994 (remember video spiggot and videovision?) FCP, AVID, ETC... aint exactly blazin' uncharted territory here... hell, i'd say that 75% (or more) of all movies youve seen in the last 8 years were cut on an NLE of some sort

i think that mass access to what was at any time considered an "eletist toolset" has both positive and negative effects on the artform itself. i came into the design profession in the late 1980s. which was a funny time, although i was trained in all the oldschool methods, desktop publishing was just coming into its own. so i got to see the evolution from both sides of the fence.

the bad side is that any jackass with a few grand can suddenly call himself a "film"maker, graphic artist, music producer or web designer. this really deluges and confuses the marketplace and i think weakens the public face of a medium. i equate this with someone sudenly deciding to become a doctor and going on a physicians forum and asking what the best scalpel to buy. ok, maybe equating our business with the medical profession is a bit presumptuous - BUT to the life of a business we can be just THAT crucial...

however, on the good side, it brings a number of new approaches and processes to the various mediums which can result in shaking up old guard and possibly out dated workflows revolutionizing the medium as a whole.

Thanks for your comments, Wayne. I think the graphics design influence on film editing will be a positive one. Frankly, I wish I could learn Motion a bit quicker. I'm really struggling with it. I can't do too much with it yet. But I think that, just as experimental filmmaking had an effect on music videos in the 80s, programs like Motion (and what I imagine Shake to be) will have a profound impact on how movies will be edited and how audiences will come to appreciate visual design a bit more. I think film has lagged behind in this arena for too long, mostly (I think) because of the realistic television style of story telling. There are too many television directors working in the theatrical film industry. I think it's a drag. I wish feature films would be more innovative. I think in terms of story handling they are becoming that way, but not in terms of graphic design.

> I wish feature films would be more innovative. I think in terms of story handling they are
> becoming that way, but not in terms of graphic design.

On the other hand, if I get another film that looks like Domino or Spun, I'm gonna puke! Worst film of Tony Scott's career, to be sure; even Keira Knightley couldn't save it.


www.derekmok.com

> I think the graphics design influence on film editing will be a positive one

vic, where are you getting all this "will be" stuff??? man, NLE's have been in widespread use for well over a decade now and motion graphics have been availbale to joe public at large since well before adobe bought after effects from CoSA (what was that, like 1996?). i think one of the bigger "graphic" influences historically was kyle coopers "imaginary forces" company and they got their start way back when...

i appreciate your excitement over all of this stuff but none of its is anything new... really the biggest thing thats been groundbreaking about FCP is that it was the first reasonably serious tool that didnt need a dedicated hardware board and didnt require expensive external raids to simply function. and thats been the case since 1999ish.

over the last say 7 or 8 years its been more of an evolution rather than revolution...

I don't want to join just to make depressing remarks, but in the last few years I got the impression NLE software is becoming the most conservative segment among visual applications (Photoshop probably being the very worst case). FCP is no worse in this regard. In fact, it's probably better in this area than the others. But seriously, the core creative toolset haven't changed that much since 1999. They added more RT (a byproduct of Moore's Law), Color Correction, time remapping, multi-camera and so on. But again, the core application hasn't changed in a very signficative way since 1999, has it? Heck, the last few upgrades were more about supporting new formats than anything else. Before talking innovation in FCP, would it please allow us to select, copy or paste a simple keyframe?

I find it really sad that Cinema 4D, one of my favorite applications, grows more in a .5 update than FCP does in one or two major releases. AVID is worse, of course. Premiere is not worse, simply because they had a lot of catch up to do.

I feel innovation is today more in things like Motion, DVD SP and good old After Effects, which 16 years later keeps reinventing itself. I always wonder if Adobe understands it or cares about it at all.

Cinema 4D's Mograph module is really innovative: the kind of thing that makes you feel like running to try new things creatively. Motion's Replicator is an example of a new concept which is going to be copied through the industry. A work of art. The MIDI behavior won't be cloned as much because is too specific, but it's equally brilliant. After Effects' javascript based expresions was another breakthrough, also copied in some way or another by everybody else. That little application Kinemac looks really innovative too. I don't have much use for it, as an user of "true" 3D, but one has to applaud how easy and fast it makes simple 3D graphics. When I saw it I thought: I wish Apple bought this and merged it with Motion. It works in a similar way with OpenGL and you could use Motion's replicator, text animation, particle systems and everything else in that easy, fast 3D environment. With cameras, lights, volumetric objects and so on. Wouldn't that be cool?

Adolfo Rozenfeld
Buenos Aires - Argentina
www.adolforozenfeld.com

Years of editing experience whether it be on a moviola, flatbed, avid, vegas, Premiere Pro or FCP, does not necessarily make a good editor. You could have a guy/gal that has only edited one or two films, be a much better editor that someone that has edited 10 films. Editing is about story telling. Some people are better at it than others. As for the graphic design comments, have you seen any films released in the last few years?

My take is that low-cost high quality software enables the first timer and old timer alike.

This means we should see more and more rubbish as more people are able to make TV, netTV, Film, etc.

Look at YouTube, Cable TV, Satellite et al, everyone and their dog/grandma/spiderman action figure is making films.

Some are just awful, some are really awful and occasionally you will see something SOOOO bad its gone "round-the-clock" and like a double negative makes a positive - is pure genius.

Likewise as the percentage of bad goes up, so does the percentage of good.

I have never saturated myself so much with media as I do today and the sheer amount of wonderful stuff out there to find or recommended to me is great.

I half agree with Wayne - it has been an Evolution rather than a Revolution as far as technology is concerned, but definately a Revolution in price/quality.

6 years ago I saw Apple/FCP take the slow (Avid led) NLE (r)evolution, grease it up and send it sliding down the helter skelter into the masses. The knock on effect is low cost Avid and many other NLE systems producing wonderful offerings trying to compete. Giving us the tools we want/need to create our masterpieces.

As for whether movies are better than they used to be? I certainly get to see more than I used to.

I suppose due to the sheer amount of movies, I could always pick a bad one, then my opinion would be negative or visa versa.

Choice is what the consumer demanded, choice is what we got, I say from personal experience its a good thing and some movies are/will be better for it.


Ben



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

The stuff on youtube makes me wonder too, but it's a lesson about entertainment that can't be ignored...

I've been somewhat out of the loop for several years and that kind of hit me when I hear how long NLE systems have been with us. I've simply stayed too long with pre-computer film editing. For me it seems like a revolution...

But I'm amazed that the potential of FCP is still not appreciably realized -- to my way of thinking. My God there's so much more we can do with this tool... Please help me learn this thing a little better; I promise to share :-)

Thanks for your generosity in sharing ideas already.

"I wish feature films would be more innovative. I think in terms of story handling they are
becoming that way, but not in terms of graphic design."

-That is to me a very interesting point of view. If anything, movies are generally becoming dumber and dumber. (my opinion not fact).
look at Xmen3, Superman, Bad Boys2, Star Wars etc. They really really suck from a script and storytelling point of view. They are bascially just an orgie in effects or "graphic design" so I dont really agree with the comment above. Yes its true, every now and then we do get an interesting movie that does have an interesting and innovative way of telling a story like "Memento" and "rules of attraction" but they are far and few inbetween.

I think its basically due to the fact that in order for the expensive movies to reach a bigger audience the movies must be made for the lowest common denominator. By doing so they exclude us, a few movie professional lovers/critics, in favour of the dumb, much larger mass who actually laughs at Martin Lawrence and that find Will Smith funny and that honestly believes that Collin Farrel can act.


Thank god for Woody Allen and "Match Point" however!

Johan Polhem
Motion Graphics
www.johanpolhem.com

Jason:
An orgie of effects, as you called it, has nothing to do with graphics design.
Graphics design is a form of communication that is about giving added depth and meaning to messages, not intoxicating viewers with eye candy. X-men, Superman and the others you mentioned have no influence at all of graphic design in their structure or even visual development. In fact, they are very conservative in the way they are narrated visually.

When other posters talked about graphics design, they meant surely a more relevant and risky influence of design in the sense of using the screen as a canvas. A place where typography, geometry and color become part of the grammar: Please notice that in literature there is narrative and there is poetry. This could be "poetry" in film terms. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen in the mainstream film industry soon. Film festivals have some examples of that, though.

Adolfo Rozenfeld
Buenos Aires - Argentina
www.adolforozenfeld.com

Is it really that recent films are so bad?

Or do all the special effects blind us so much that we miss the subtle nuances of Hayden "Dawson's Creek Vader" Christensen's emotive and heart felt inner struggle? Or the sheer Genius of remaking Peter Sellers' movies?

For those that don't read sarcasm that well, those last lines were heavily dosed with cynicism...

To add to Jason & Adolfo's comments - I would say the OVER use of Graphic Design but without the implied intelligence behind the word "Design" could be used in this case... ie Graphics - High quality and sometimes pointless, but nonetheless impressive Graphics, used in heavy score laden moments to disuise the awful script and poor plot.

It's down to the Writer, Director, cast & crew to weave these special effects and virtual worlds into a story that works on whatever level they are aiming at. They often miss the mark we hope for and we are left thinking "wtf? They spent HOW much on that?" or "I wouldn't even watch that again for free..."

I definately agree that many US/UK mainstream films are becoming "dumber and dumber" but they make money and so the financiers will back more of the same.

"Horses for Courses" I say - try to understand that there needs to be a choice for everyone, some people are never going to improve their IQ or Knowledge beyond Barney the Pink Dinosaur or Teletubbies and these people DO make up a large proportion of paying customers.

I personally like whiney old Woody Allen but have many high-brow friends who think he's a total bore and should be filed away under Z so no-one has to endure his rants. It goes to show you can't please everyone.

If we want to have jobs and see the industry thrive, then try not to complain too much if there is rubbish on the screen - it pays our bills and unless demand changes we aren't going to change the world by complaining.

Let's go make something better in our spare time using the money we got doing the Microsoft video on "Why Vista will be better" (Sorry Bill but give up now and make the world a better place).

I would also say - if you are dissatisfied with the offerings you get in the US/UK mainstream - view more foreign films that have more passion and less budget, original stories and better acting, albeit for some of you (not pointing any fingers Mike ) the accents will be a little wacky (especially the Australian ones [www.digitalproductionbuzz.com]) and subtitles can distract sometimes from the brilliance of a performance.

Grumble of Editors? Us? With our reputations? Are they quite mad?

Ben

PS - I do not sound like a pirate, despite living in Bristol... YaaAAaarrrr! Make ready tha cannon! Splice tha main-brace! Shiver-me-timbers...



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

Johan Polhem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I wish feature films would be more innovative. I
> think in terms of story handling they are
> becoming that way, but not in terms of graphic
> design."

For those of you lucky enough to have been around in the late 70' and early to mid 80's, you might have noticed the acceptability of stories before and after StarWars in 1977. While the graphcs technology was still almost cell animation, the Dykstracam moved modeling animation to a place never before conquered. Once StarWars set the stage for a new wave of science fantasy generes, then came fast; Spielberg's kiddy alien, dinosaurs and Indian Jones that fascinated folks with stories come to life, as never before.

Can anyone of you remember watching the first StarWars movie and thinking, "there has NEVER ever been anything like this before!" That was true! There never ever had been anything like this in movies. It was the beginning of CG (Computer Generated) content and while it was new and different, it all too soon morphed into same old, same old. It became a one-upsmanship game of making faster, meaner, scarier or whatever else the goals were to get people to flock to theaters and spend their entertainment dollars.

Somewhere in that hysterical maze of filmmaking, the story got lost, in most cases. Some movies were there to demonstrate moving Maya models or some other software generated scenes without the proper setup of a story. The latest disaster (Snakes on a Plane) illustrates my point. Indian Jones was afraid of "snakes" and that made him lovable, but snakes killing people in an enclosed space, is mindless. Who needs a story?

The whole discussion of what makes a good editor is based on your ability to tell a story, buy making a movie without a purpose, other than to make money, is tripe.

There are three issues here. The drop in cinema attendance may be due to the proliferation of home theaters; viewers can now rent movies and watch them in the comfort of their home, on large screens, surround sound and all the popcorn they can eat :-)

1. Whatever the reason for this drop in attendance, studios are making big pictures between $80 and $120 million dollars. ... There was nothing to see, so I went and saw the new Pirates of the Caribbean. Okay, I don't know what to say. It was okay, I guess. There was some entertainment value. I would've like it if the images stayed on the screen a couple of frames longer :-) but maybe that's just my eyes ain't what they used to be. ... And the oozing slime form the creatures, oh, God, that was disgusting ... but the kids seemed to like it. LOL

Story? There wasn't much of a story. It was just like the old ride in Disneyland: the dog with the keys, the drunken sailors, the fires burning everywhere, smoke and mirrors... Keira Knightley lit up the screen sometimes when the editors stayed long enough on her and when she wasn't twirling around fighting some nasty pirate :-) I don't mean to ramble, but what I wanted to say is that:

2. Graphic Design. What I'm talking about it like when the impressionists came along in the 1920s Paris and reinvented painting. Why can't we do that with movies? I think FCP -- I mean, you might say this is nuts, because this is all I know right now -- but never mind what's your favorite editing and compositing program; for me, FCP5 offers a dramatic opportunity to manipulate the images so the photography isn't totally realistic. I have nothing against realism; there are many stories that need to be done realistically and, one might add, classically. But I'm talking about the opportunity to manipulate images to reflect the color, texture, movement and line of what the image are supposed to convey within the sequence. The filmmaker needs to create those images with all the tools at his/her disposal, and I'm talking of the editing stage now. ... Of course you might say: that would destroy what the actors were trying to do. So, preferably, the editorial style should be considered before production begins and actors should be forewarned of what the editors are trying to achieve and how the filmmaker will handle the footage (the images).

Now, I'm not saying all films should be like this -- as I said.

3. Over the years I had many strange experiences observing how the movie industry changed with respect to directing, editing, even acting.

I remember working as an assistant cameraman on a $800,000 movie in Hollywood starring Neville Brand, Mel Ferrer, etc. I remember Mel Ferrer had a very short scene. He was killed in a gruesome way with a scythe. I was standing close to the camera looking at him in this stupid harness. He looked at me with his sad eyes. He was doing a horror film in his last days as an actor trying to keep up with his bills. I really felt bad. I had seen him as a kid in Tolstoy's War and Peace with Audrey Hepburn (who became his wife in real life). After we shot the stupid scene where Neville Brand kills him, we did a few dialogue scenes with him. It was amazing to see how the old actor handled them. He did four perfect takes. The close up, the medium shot, the long shot -- all matched perfectly, in the way he did every word, every gesture -- every detail was the same in each take and yet the performance remained fresh and natural like the first time he did it.

I haven't seen that sort of professionalism on movie sets after that. I haven't been on a lot of movie sets since those days -- I really was disgusted and didn't feel like working on B-Movies anymore. So I decided to make my own personal films even then.

If I have to work with non-union actors, I might just as well let them give me what they have -- whatever freshness they bring to the performance... I hear some "movie stars" taking a whole day to do one line. They want to do it perfect. Mel Ferrer did four perfect lines in ten minutes. And these stars -- method actors, Stanislavsky, whatever -- they get $20 million. No wonder movies cost $100 million.

I'm happier making no budget movies, with actors who are for the most part trying to break into television, getting on a series, and buying a house in Beverly Hills or Malibu -- I have nothing against that. I give them their break, the footage for their reels, meals, transportation ... etc. ... When it comes to editing, I tell them I'm going to get creative. They understand and don't mind that I'll play around with the images in FCP. I tell them all that up front.

Now, having said all this, all I want to get out of this thread are some ideas on how to take editing to a more creative level. So I call it graphic design, but I mean that in a broad sense. And of course there's music and sound as well. I want to learn as much as possible so I can make FCP work for me.

I'm getting a lot more than what I asked for, of course, and for this too I'm very gratefull.

Hi Vic,
I think that a well written script that has something meaningful to say in addition to it's entertainment value & the best cast you can come up with are the main ingredients. You can't make a digestible meal out of a turd. If you have the right ingredients to work with the editing will come naturally. The trouble with most of the crap that has been released post Star Wars is that the stuff is over laden with special effects & an over use of sound. Among the DVD's I borrowed from the library this past week was "Ingmar Bergman Makes A Movie". 146 minutes with Bergman back in 1961 being interviewed by former film critic/young film director Vilgot Sjoman (best known for "I am curious yellow"who explores the veteran film director method of working from the final days of writing the script for his film "Winter Light", through the various rehearsals with the cast & crew on location, editing, sound mix session & final premier of the film. I found his discussion with Vilgot during the sound mix where he explain why it is so important from a dramatic point of view to use sound effects extremely sparingly. Elsewhere he talks about the dramatic impact of total silence on the soundtrack & how he is using it in a particularly difficult scene he is in the process of blocking for the cast & crew. There is a lot of laughter & humor going on between takes on this rather serious film & he explains why this is necessary as well. If you haven't seen this DVD, it is in the Criterion Collection and it's an enjoyable 2 hrs. 1/2. It wont tell you much about editing, but seeing the equipment that these marvelous films were made with, it really brings home how easy we have it today.

If you look at the directing credit for David Lean's "A Passage to India" it says Directed & Edited by David Lean. Putting the inflection on the editing aspect seemed rather important to Lean.

Having another person working along with you can often be helpful in giving you another perspective on the work anywhere from the script to editing, but it doesn't guarantee a better result. Like making a fine cut, if it feels right, then even though it's not the normal procedure, go with your instincts. I think MOS filming should be done whenever possible.


Dave

A breath of fresh air -- thanks, Dave.

It's easy to lose one's perspective as a filmmaker during this upheaval of the film industry: soaring cost of film production, lack of well-trained talent, overwhelming use of special effects, drop in attendance -- this on the one hand and then the rise of the Internet as an exhibition medium for entertainment. I have a feeling things are changing faster than we can keep up with them, and yet we must...

I'll look for this video. I need to refresh my knowledge base.

I had a look at Olmi's "i Fidanzati" last night along with Alvidson"s "Save the Tiger". I'm sure Olmi shot MOS. Actually it was the norm in Italy at the time & may very well still be. Rossallini, Da Sica, Visconti, Fellini all made wonderful films using that technique.

I really enjoyed seeing "Save the Tiger" again sort of a Death of a Salesman type of story that you don't see in the Cinema anymore, about as out of style as Woody Guthrie.

Dave

I had a look at Olmi's "i Fidanzati" last night along with Alvidson"s "Save the Tiger". I'm sure Olmi shot MOS. Actually it was the norm in Italy at the time & may very well still be. Rossallini, Da Sica, Visconti, Fellini all made wonderful films using that technique.

I really enjoyed seeing "Save the Tiger" again sort of a Death of a Salesman type of story that you don't see in the Cinema anymore, about as out of style as Woody Guthrie.

Dave

Love this discussion, with such a variety of valid viewpoints.

I focus on this:

[f course there are hundreds if not thousands of editing rules for cutting picture alone. ... ]

I would never isolate picture entirely from the show's gestalt. There are basic rules which come with the craft, these are learned on the job or in school. And then there is the step beyond-- those rules which sensitive editors derive from the heartbeat of the story, usually driven by lead players adopting the director's vision and the script-- and which actually dictate everything from selection, arrangement and pacing of each and every scene, and why one pattern doesn't work while another nails it. You can apply whatever metric necessary-- Ralph Rosenblum's 3 reasons, Walter Murch's six reasons, or your own criteria, to justify every cut. Done well, that is the essential craft.

I started cooking on upright Moviolas too-- but only briefly before adopting the Steenbeck 4 and 6 plate as my main ovens. And I did cut one bad 35mm feature using the classic 2-Moviola system practiced by only a few today, and it was frankly thrilling. Because I knew from reports of Montage, EditDroid, EMC2, and Avid, that it would soon be a memory, folklore.

But proper editing values don't go away with new tools; they are actually brought into sharper focus because so much drek can be generated from them. I've applied the same values to a project on Media Composer and on Final Cut Pro. While I miss airspooling, I don't miss finger cuts and dished cores and the constant tedious need to keep it all in synch. And the freedom to revise and provide alternate treatments even on tight deadines is a godsend. Couldn't do that in the old days.

Also keep in mind, what you edit has a lot to do with the footage you get. If you get "24" style footage it damn well be as well written, acted, produced as "24"!!!

- Loren
Today's FCP 5 keytip:
Preview effects sections with Option-P or Option-Backslash!

The FCP 5 KeyGuide?: a professional placemat.
Now available at KeyGuide Central:
www.neotrondesign.com

I must find these movies and review them again. I think I only saw Olmi's El Posto. I'll look for Save the Tiger. Thanks for reminding me that most Italian and New Wave directors used this technique -- where essentially image was treated independently from sound. Of course, they were not entirely independent of each other, but were supposed to be considered independently and combined ... as Eisenstein did in a variety of ways, harmoniously, in counterpoint...

I think FCP allows us to ADR and score MOS footage more effectively and this is why I got excited about NLE editing for the first time several months ago. If FCP is utilized only for traditional synch sound style of filmmaking -- essetially television style of movie making (just because video allows for sound to be recorded on tape automatically :-) -- a lot of opportunities will be wasted. I think FCP can revive the art of filmmaking just based on this...

But then there is also image manipulation...

[s Eisenstein did in a variety of ways, harmoniously, in counterpoint... ]

In my opinon, Eisenstein is a vastly overrated poster artist with one brilliant work, POTEMKIN. I generally sit more firmly with Pudovkin.

- Loren
Today's FCP 5 keytip:
Preview effects sections with Option-P or Option-Backslash!

The FCP 5 KeyGuide?: a professional placemat.
Now available at KeyGuide Central:
www.neotrondesign.com

I like Eisenstein, but his approach to film can't all be applied effectively to filmmaking today. His rhythms are at least three times slower than the modern eye likes. His theories of juxtaposition and contextualization still work, though.


www.derekmok.com

Eisenstein overrated?
Opinions are free

Now that we're talking russian.
How about Dziga Vertov? He and people like Man Ray understood something I have trouble explaining even today.

Hollywood and others really got in people's head the idea that film is strictly a narrative medium. If there's no story and "acting", there's nothing.

See how people in this thread have pointed out that a "script" is the key. Outside narration and scripts, we have the giant turtles that sustain the flat world The idea of something that has no "story" is seen as a synonim of void. Complete, utter nonsense in film. The current, bad movies mentioned are based on bad scripts. There is no "lack" of script, just the opposite. Bad and non-existant are not the same thing.

I think it would be interesting to go back to this: In literature, again, there's prose and there's poetry. Tools like Final Cut Pro, but specially others like Motion and After Effects, are amazing for a form of visual communication that can be more like poetry. Using the frame like a canvas to build messages with type, geometry, space and color, rather than narration. There's a whole range of human emotions and sensations outside of "telling a story". And there's still a lot to explore there.

People could say I'm describing commercial motion graphics. Not quite. We just have to take out the paying client and create something like that without those constrains. Commercial motiong graphics is often following established visual trends rather than breaking new ground. There are many stunning exceptions, sure.

Narrative film is more or less the same as when Eisenstein was around, only faster and worse.

Adolfo Rozenfeld
Buenos Aires - Argentina
www.adolforozenfeld.com

It would be lovely to think that an art house or experimental film such as the ones you describe would ever get the millions watching it on general release and buying the DVD (other than art/film students forced to watch Koyaanisqatsi endlessly!), but its just not the case.

Besides - many a good piece will have a "script" the backbone if you will to the film, whether it be spoken, musical or purely visual.

If we argue semantics the "script" does not specifically describe a visual + spoken piece but is simply a written document that describes the film visuals along with (if any) sound and speech in sync.

So I think what everyone has said so far is entirely correct - a lack of good idea/script is the main problem with most modern films.

If you want to talk random images then there is a place where thousands if not millions will watch narrative-less visuals and thats in VJing or Video Jockeying - nice visuals for the ravers and a visual treat for the people watching a music concert.

Although more often these are based on the musical narrative to lend an extra visual experience of the ideas being portrayed in the music/lyrics.

I agree with your description of Hollywood films, but there is at least a tendency for the weird and wonderful to come through like never before...

All thanks to FCP and Low cost high quality hardware.

Ben



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

I can't recall who wrote to screenplay for the Robert Rosen version of "All the Kings Men" but when I go the current rehashing of the story it's going to be with low expectations, in spite of the fact that it has a good cast. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Dave