|
|
All the news now and in your digital future
Editor credits
Posted by RG
|
Re: Editor credits February 21, 2010 06:27AM |
> I have suggested that she should get some new IV grabs from one particular person in order
> to simply explain certain parts of the story. I mean really basic plot points.
Well, it's going to depend on what exactly the plot point is.
And then you have to consider, is that the right point in the story to call attention to the storytelling.
Another thing I get frustrated with about producers planning interviews is that they're not creative enough. For example, if the necessary story point is "I went to Wales in March", it tends to work much better during the interview to phrase the question as, "Can you tell us what you did then?". Instead, most producers insist on trying to get the subject to say, "I went to Wales in March of that year".
The principle of "trying to get them to say complete sentences" is often a great way to get a stiff, nervous, formalistic, stupid-sounding interview "soundbite".
If the plot point is, "My father died", an interview won't work at all. You need footage of the funeral, real moments that convey the plot point. It's too heavy a point to just get across like a teletype.
If the plot point is, "I ran out of money, so I had to go back to America to raise funds before proceeding", by all means, do it in voice-over or interview, or third-person-omniscient narration. Trying to stage that kind of story beat in pure visuals will actually look pretentious.
> isn't this about the very nature of documentary making?
I don't think so, at least not to that extent. Not every documentary can tolerate seeing any part of the film crew in the picture. Not every documentary can tolerate having a badly miked offscreen crew member talk to the onscreen characters. And then, I'm talking about emotion. Not every beat will necessitate the kind of tonal fascism I'm advocating. I'm just saying people have stopped exhausting true documentary editing techniques before resorting to talking heads. One documentary I assisted on several years ago had about 65 per cent interviews in its 120 hours of footage. Painful.
> Most 'making of' docos on DVDs are nothing more than publicity pap. Occasionally they're not
> though. Have a look at the 'making of' for "The Sea Inside". It's very crudely made, but a
> fascinating insight.
The George A. Romero film Land of the Dead had a pretty decent making-of documentary. All the people involved seemed genuinely excited about Romero and the film, and there was even one moment where Simon Baker came out and said something like "This is not the usual DVD making-of bulls**t...this was the best time I had making any movie". The kind of thing you usually cut out. So it was refreshing in that way.
But I still felt keenly the lack of on-set footage showing that Baker had a good time, which would have conveyed the message far more effectively, rather than him telling us directly.
Now, was this even possible? Could they have done this in making the documentary? If they didn't have a camera on set, or enough footage to support the point, then perhaps the interview was the only way to do it. If I were editing the documentary, of course I'd still say, get the interview. But just because a film didn't have any other choice, doesn't mean the problem isn't there, that the documentary couldn't have been better. And when filmmakers just jump right to the interview solution to get that "piece of information" (that phrase tends to raise alarm bells in my head), without trying anything else, that's when you get mediocrity.
As for the Barclay thing, I saw a few clues in his bio as to why I don't agree with him:
> Barclay was advised to get into television via radio.
Not at all surprising. Radio is an utterly different medium. I have a background in features writing, journalism. Aside from the crispness of news writing and a certain storytelling structure, I haven't found journalism to be a good model for filmmaking. Investigative journalism is way too limited in its sensory tools. Imagine a 60 Minutes segment. Even in its voice-over intro giving you the context of the piece, you still need B-roll, location shots and other visual tools of communication to ground your presentation. They understand you need to put the viewers there, not just tell them about it in words. They use a combination of the two for maximum effect.
> the director's work had "given voice to the voiceless, and helped people tell their own stories"
That's worthy of respect, but film is a visual medium. You get 10 times more information by being in the situation, rather than hearing somebody tell about it. Films aren't news articles, where you build the structure using direct quotations. If all the actual physical events of a documentary were conveyed via interviews, you'd have an unworkable film, because the viewer will say, "Why don't I see what you're talking about?" Or he'll shrug and say, "So what?" That's why you need B-roll (eg. even something you've seen many times before, like arriving at an airport or riding in a car) rather than just somebody saying, "We then went to England".
www.derekmok.com
> to simply explain certain parts of the story. I mean really basic plot points.
Well, it's going to depend on what exactly the plot point is.
And then you have to consider, is that the right point in the story to call attention to the storytelling.
Another thing I get frustrated with about producers planning interviews is that they're not creative enough. For example, if the necessary story point is "I went to Wales in March", it tends to work much better during the interview to phrase the question as, "Can you tell us what you did then?". Instead, most producers insist on trying to get the subject to say, "I went to Wales in March of that year".
The principle of "trying to get them to say complete sentences" is often a great way to get a stiff, nervous, formalistic, stupid-sounding interview "soundbite".
If the plot point is, "My father died", an interview won't work at all. You need footage of the funeral, real moments that convey the plot point. It's too heavy a point to just get across like a teletype.
If the plot point is, "I ran out of money, so I had to go back to America to raise funds before proceeding", by all means, do it in voice-over or interview, or third-person-omniscient narration. Trying to stage that kind of story beat in pure visuals will actually look pretentious.
> isn't this about the very nature of documentary making?
I don't think so, at least not to that extent. Not every documentary can tolerate seeing any part of the film crew in the picture. Not every documentary can tolerate having a badly miked offscreen crew member talk to the onscreen characters. And then, I'm talking about emotion. Not every beat will necessitate the kind of tonal fascism I'm advocating. I'm just saying people have stopped exhausting true documentary editing techniques before resorting to talking heads. One documentary I assisted on several years ago had about 65 per cent interviews in its 120 hours of footage. Painful.
> Most 'making of' docos on DVDs are nothing more than publicity pap. Occasionally they're not
> though. Have a look at the 'making of' for "The Sea Inside". It's very crudely made, but a
> fascinating insight.
The George A. Romero film Land of the Dead had a pretty decent making-of documentary. All the people involved seemed genuinely excited about Romero and the film, and there was even one moment where Simon Baker came out and said something like "This is not the usual DVD making-of bulls**t...this was the best time I had making any movie". The kind of thing you usually cut out. So it was refreshing in that way.
But I still felt keenly the lack of on-set footage showing that Baker had a good time, which would have conveyed the message far more effectively, rather than him telling us directly.
Now, was this even possible? Could they have done this in making the documentary? If they didn't have a camera on set, or enough footage to support the point, then perhaps the interview was the only way to do it. If I were editing the documentary, of course I'd still say, get the interview. But just because a film didn't have any other choice, doesn't mean the problem isn't there, that the documentary couldn't have been better. And when filmmakers just jump right to the interview solution to get that "piece of information" (that phrase tends to raise alarm bells in my head), without trying anything else, that's when you get mediocrity.
As for the Barclay thing, I saw a few clues in his bio as to why I don't agree with him:
> Barclay was advised to get into television via radio.
Not at all surprising. Radio is an utterly different medium. I have a background in features writing, journalism. Aside from the crispness of news writing and a certain storytelling structure, I haven't found journalism to be a good model for filmmaking. Investigative journalism is way too limited in its sensory tools. Imagine a 60 Minutes segment. Even in its voice-over intro giving you the context of the piece, you still need B-roll, location shots and other visual tools of communication to ground your presentation. They understand you need to put the viewers there, not just tell them about it in words. They use a combination of the two for maximum effect.
> the director's work had "given voice to the voiceless, and helped people tell their own stories"
That's worthy of respect, but film is a visual medium. You get 10 times more information by being in the situation, rather than hearing somebody tell about it. Films aren't news articles, where you build the structure using direct quotations. If all the actual physical events of a documentary were conveyed via interviews, you'd have an unworkable film, because the viewer will say, "Why don't I see what you're talking about?" Or he'll shrug and say, "So what?" That's why you need B-roll (eg. even something you've seen many times before, like arriving at an airport or riding in a car) rather than just somebody saying, "We then went to England".
www.derekmok.com
|
Re: Editor credits February 21, 2010 08:09AM |
If we were having this conversation in person, at a bar, I'd be the guy sitting between you two going "Yeah, he's got a point" and then turning the other way and saying "Oh, that's true."
Bad interview documentaries are bad. I think we can all agree on that. Reenactments are cheesy and should be avoided. I think we can all agree on that as well.
Then we can sit down and watch The Thin Blue Line, a film that literally got a wrongly convicted man out of prison, and agree that both interviews and reenactments are pretty damn powerful techniques.
I think the reason why Errol Morris is up on a pedestal as a patron saint of nonfiction filmmaking is because he's figured out how to do interviews well. I think Thin Blue Line was before he entered his "interrotron" period, but he still managed to make the interviews gripping. Of course, part of that might be editorial; I don't know what Morris' shooting ratio tends to be, but if it's 150:1 or something, then it's easier to see how he can get good interview footage.
The canonical Errol Morris movie will always be, for me, Gates of Heaven. The story is utterly mundane, there's not really anything at stake, the conflict (such as it is) is either ludicrous or appalling depending on your point of view, and the characters are generally unlikeable people. And it's one of the most riveting films I've ever seen in my life.
So I come down on the side that says filmmaking techniques aren't bad, but that some are harder to pull off successfully than others.
Bad interview documentaries are bad. I think we can all agree on that. Reenactments are cheesy and should be avoided. I think we can all agree on that as well.
Then we can sit down and watch The Thin Blue Line, a film that literally got a wrongly convicted man out of prison, and agree that both interviews and reenactments are pretty damn powerful techniques.
I think the reason why Errol Morris is up on a pedestal as a patron saint of nonfiction filmmaking is because he's figured out how to do interviews well. I think Thin Blue Line was before he entered his "interrotron" period, but he still managed to make the interviews gripping. Of course, part of that might be editorial; I don't know what Morris' shooting ratio tends to be, but if it's 150:1 or something, then it's easier to see how he can get good interview footage.
The canonical Errol Morris movie will always be, for me, Gates of Heaven. The story is utterly mundane, there's not really anything at stake, the conflict (such as it is) is either ludicrous or appalling depending on your point of view, and the characters are generally unlikeable people. And it's one of the most riveting films I've ever seen in my life.
So I come down on the side that says filmmaking techniques aren't bad, but that some are harder to pull off successfully than others.
|
Re: Editor credits February 21, 2010 03:55PM |
Jeff - if we were sitting in a bar, I would also be agreeing with everything Derek says. His last post is so deadly accurate and relevant to the film I'm doing that it's almost surreal.
>If the plot point is, "My father died", an interview won't work at all.
There are at least six plot points at this level and none have any supporting footage. We are searching for as many stills of the people involved as we can get. They will help, but I know we won't get anything of the actual moments. To make matters worse, the main character is paralysed and can only speak through a computer voice. I've considered using title cards - but they're so portentous and pregnant.
But, putting this in perspective, the film is not about those terrible incidents from the past. The film is very much in the present and I have heaps of great present day footage. We just have to know about the past to understand the present.
I feel that I should just thank you for all your comments, Derek. You've helped me clarify my thoughts a huge amount. Although I would love to continue the discussion, I can't see a way to take it any further without getting into the fine details of the specific film I'm doing - and that seems inappropriate on this forum.
Not to mention the irony that we're chatting about this in a thread called "Editor credits". And I'm already wondering whether you should be given a credit...
Many thanks again. Maybe I'll get to LA one day and we could meet up with Jeff at some disreputable bar somewhere...
Mike
>If the plot point is, "My father died", an interview won't work at all.
There are at least six plot points at this level and none have any supporting footage. We are searching for as many stills of the people involved as we can get. They will help, but I know we won't get anything of the actual moments. To make matters worse, the main character is paralysed and can only speak through a computer voice. I've considered using title cards - but they're so portentous and pregnant.
But, putting this in perspective, the film is not about those terrible incidents from the past. The film is very much in the present and I have heaps of great present day footage. We just have to know about the past to understand the present.
I feel that I should just thank you for all your comments, Derek. You've helped me clarify my thoughts a huge amount. Although I would love to continue the discussion, I can't see a way to take it any further without getting into the fine details of the specific film I'm doing - and that seems inappropriate on this forum.
Not to mention the irony that we're chatting about this in a thread called "Editor credits". And I'm already wondering whether you should be given a credit...
Many thanks again. Maybe I'll get to LA one day and we could meet up with Jeff at some disreputable bar somewhere...
Mike
|
Re: Editor credits February 21, 2010 04:08PM |
> I've considered using title cards - but they're so portentous and pregnant.
I'd probably agree with that. They often make the film look like a silent film. And in the current age, that would be a huge, heavy-handed stylistic choice that would jump right out at you.
> There are at least six plot points at this level and none have any supporting footage. We are
> searching for as many stills of the people involved as we can get.
Stills can work very well. And also, since film is visual, you have the advantage that visual images don't convey one specific message, unlike voice-over and interviews, or any kind of written/spoken language. Images are open to contextualization, and you can make connections to images that don't specifically tell your beat, but evoke the beat.
For example, if the beat is, "His father died of cancer", you can do (just off the top of my head):
1. Still picture of young kid with father. Dissolve to later still of them, older. Zoom into the father slowly. Dissolve into father's grave.
2. The funeral.
3. The mother packing the father's things.
4. Empty hospital bed, nurses cleaning out the bed.
5. The morgue.
6. Father's medical reports, any kind of documentation. Hospital scans, etc.
7. Footage from the father's last days.
8. Shot of father's doctor.
9. Footage from when the father first entered the hospital.
The possibilities are limitless. And as long as you support the verbal "script" or interviews with imagery, it won't feel like you're trying to get across a plot point by just having somebody say something. Make the voice-over emotional, rather than expository. Expository language, in either interview or dialogue, is one of the great no-nos of visual storytelling.
Glad to hear that you find our discussions useful!
www.derekmok.com
I'd probably agree with that. They often make the film look like a silent film. And in the current age, that would be a huge, heavy-handed stylistic choice that would jump right out at you.
> There are at least six plot points at this level and none have any supporting footage. We are
> searching for as many stills of the people involved as we can get.
Stills can work very well. And also, since film is visual, you have the advantage that visual images don't convey one specific message, unlike voice-over and interviews, or any kind of written/spoken language. Images are open to contextualization, and you can make connections to images that don't specifically tell your beat, but evoke the beat.
For example, if the beat is, "His father died of cancer", you can do (just off the top of my head):
1. Still picture of young kid with father. Dissolve to later still of them, older. Zoom into the father slowly. Dissolve into father's grave.
2. The funeral.
3. The mother packing the father's things.
4. Empty hospital bed, nurses cleaning out the bed.
5. The morgue.
6. Father's medical reports, any kind of documentation. Hospital scans, etc.
7. Footage from the father's last days.
8. Shot of father's doctor.
9. Footage from when the father first entered the hospital.
The possibilities are limitless. And as long as you support the verbal "script" or interviews with imagery, it won't feel like you're trying to get across a plot point by just having somebody say something. Make the voice-over emotional, rather than expository. Expository language, in either interview or dialogue, is one of the great no-nos of visual storytelling.
Glad to hear that you find our discussions useful!
www.derekmok.com
|
Re: Editor credits February 21, 2010 08:08PM |
But sometimes you want and need the talking head. Sometimes you are using them to say something that you want to include for balance but don't want to attribute to the documentary 'voice' - either something you really agree with but don't want to say outright, or something you clearly don't agree with. So it becomes THIS GUY reckons this. Not WE reckon this.
ie
THIS GUY reckons Mugabe is a violent racist.
THIS GUY reckons the Klu Klux Klan is an integral part of American culture.
Do like your list of ways to show the death Derek. Footage done in super 8 style even better.
ie
THIS GUY reckons Mugabe is a violent racist.
THIS GUY reckons the Klu Klux Klan is an integral part of American culture.
Do like your list of ways to show the death Derek. Footage done in super 8 style even better.
|
Re: Editor credits February 21, 2010 08:26PM |
I watched "Dear Zachary" a few months ago. It's going to be a long time before I can use the "show some grainy old home-movie footage to play with the audience's emotions" trick again.
That said, it's a cliché because it works. Crappy ideas that people try once and never use again because they sucked don't become clichés.
That said, it's a cliché because it works. Crappy ideas that people try once and never use again because they sucked don't become clichés.
|
Re: Editor credits February 21, 2010 11:02PM |
Go to slow-mo, bleed out the colour, cue the minor chords..
Trite as hell, but as you say, it works.
You know what I would like in that list actually? All his old clothes being given to a charity. Matter of fact, business transaction, but poignant.
Trite as hell, but as you say, it works.
You know what I would like in that list actually? All his old clothes being given to a charity. Matter of fact, business transaction, but poignant.
|
Re: Editor credits February 22, 2010 01:09AM |
> THIS GUY reckons Mugabe is a violent racist.
> THIS GUY reckons the Klu Klux Klan is an integral part of American culture.
Ah...see, these aren't story beats. These are character beats. They're opinions from the person -- so they're more akin to dialogue in a film. The film isn't necessarily saying that the KKK is an integral part of American culture, or that Mugabe is a racist. These are not the film's opinions; they could just as likely be counterpoints. These show what the interview subject is like. Also, these points are intellectual, not emotional.
What I object to are using interview subjects to do something that third-person film narrative (not narration) should be doing, especially if the film is trying to convey a character's emotional state in past tense. Such as, "I felt so sad", "I hate this other guy", "We had a big fight". There are some beats that, if you tried using interviews to convey them, they won't get across properly, and will in fact make the viewer suspicious of the film's integrity, and therefore have the opposite effect from what's intended. Like a bad dramatic performance in a fiction film.
One great way to tell if an interview bit is good is: If you turn off the image of the interview subject and you didn't lose anything, it's probably not useful, or should be used under some other imagery. If you get something richer, more interesting from watching the subject while he's saying something, rather than only listening to him, then the interview will tend to be more compelling.
www.derekmok.com
> THIS GUY reckons the Klu Klux Klan is an integral part of American culture.
Ah...see, these aren't story beats. These are character beats. They're opinions from the person -- so they're more akin to dialogue in a film. The film isn't necessarily saying that the KKK is an integral part of American culture, or that Mugabe is a racist. These are not the film's opinions; they could just as likely be counterpoints. These show what the interview subject is like. Also, these points are intellectual, not emotional.
What I object to are using interview subjects to do something that third-person film narrative (not narration) should be doing, especially if the film is trying to convey a character's emotional state in past tense. Such as, "I felt so sad", "I hate this other guy", "We had a big fight". There are some beats that, if you tried using interviews to convey them, they won't get across properly, and will in fact make the viewer suspicious of the film's integrity, and therefore have the opposite effect from what's intended. Like a bad dramatic performance in a fiction film.
One great way to tell if an interview bit is good is: If you turn off the image of the interview subject and you didn't lose anything, it's probably not useful, or should be used under some other imagery. If you get something richer, more interesting from watching the subject while he's saying something, rather than only listening to him, then the interview will tend to be more compelling.
www.derekmok.com
|
Re: Editor credits February 22, 2010 04:35AM |
Derek is a bit of a find when it comes to story and construction. Especially since he doesn't closet the information like it's the holy grail that must be guarded at all costs lest it should fall into the hands of the heaving heathens. Back! back! Only *I*, the holy EDITOR (booming voice) can tell this story!
Hundreds of free hours of training here on these forums, really.
Hundreds of free hours of training here on these forums, really.
|
Re: Editor credits February 22, 2010 08:58AM |
> When you used the word 'beats' a day or so ago, I thought you were referring to rhythmic beats
> as in music.
That's one kind of beat. There's also "acting beats" and "story beats". Editing has to take these into consideration. Films aren't metronomes; "how fast" is only a part of the equation. If the combined speed of your cuts seems good, but your cut points are trampling all over the actor's acting beats, then it's still bad editing.
> the major part of an editors job is to find the right balance between all those elements...?
Yes! While I've likened editing to drumming on some occasions, that's not all there is. There are many more colours in an editor's job than just timekeeping -- tone, style, meaning. Put the right piece of music over a scene and suddenly you have something greater than the sum of its parts. Conversely, if you just cut to music all the time, you are often sacrificing the natural rhythm of the shots themselves, the actors, and the camera. These will not be confined to the strict speed of one piece of music (that's why film-score pieces rarely adhere to one beat). You find a symbiosis of the different elements so that they all get across, including overall rhythm.
www.derekmok.com
> as in music.
That's one kind of beat. There's also "acting beats" and "story beats". Editing has to take these into consideration. Films aren't metronomes; "how fast" is only a part of the equation. If the combined speed of your cuts seems good, but your cut points are trampling all over the actor's acting beats, then it's still bad editing.
> the major part of an editors job is to find the right balance between all those elements...?
Yes! While I've likened editing to drumming on some occasions, that's not all there is. There are many more colours in an editor's job than just timekeeping -- tone, style, meaning. Put the right piece of music over a scene and suddenly you have something greater than the sum of its parts. Conversely, if you just cut to music all the time, you are often sacrificing the natural rhythm of the shots themselves, the actors, and the camera. These will not be confined to the strict speed of one piece of music (that's why film-score pieces rarely adhere to one beat). You find a symbiosis of the different elements so that they all get across, including overall rhythm.
www.derekmok.com
|
Re: Editor credits February 22, 2010 07:10PM |
Yay for no mercy! lol Hit 'em in the heartstrings, Mike.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
