|
|
All the news now and in your digital future
OT: notes on a short movie
Posted by xavpil
|
Re: OT: notes on a short movie December 11, 2012 09:48PM |
> How do you - indie filmakers out there - get feedbacks on your cuts?
Who's the producer?
Whoever pays you is the one who determines how the review and feedback process goes.
And usually, in my experience, good producers leave the director alone until later in the process. They wouldn't have hired the director if they didn't trust him/her.
> I don't want to go through the family/friend route. They don't know how to watch a rough cut
That is actually one of the most important things you can do, if the director and/or producer agree to do it.
I have one director I partner up with the most -- 13 years and counting now. We always do screenings for non-filmmakers (looking for as few family members and close friends as possible). Filmmakers often pay attention to the wrong thing, and they are often not an accurate representation of how the film works on a normal viewer.
When we do the screenings, I don't watch the film -- I watch the viewers. I feel the vibe in the room. You can get a lot of useful information by doing this.
Afterwards we'll get notes, but it's important for you to hear or read the notes and then interpret them. You cannot take the comments of ordinary viewers at face value. I always refer to the Walter Murch "referred pain" idea. When a viewer says, "Scene X bores me", it is not his/her job to tell you why -- s/he will usually get it wrong anyway. It is your job to figure out: "They're bored because I didn't establish the character enough" or "They're bored because the scene's too short, there's no build".
Read the viewers; don't obey them. Trying to take their notes at face value is like a doctor expecting a patient to tell him what the disease is. You look at the symptoms, you listen to what the patient says, and then you have to put the whole picture together, not let the patient lead you astray.
www.derekmok.com
Who's the producer?
Whoever pays you is the one who determines how the review and feedback process goes.
And usually, in my experience, good producers leave the director alone until later in the process. They wouldn't have hired the director if they didn't trust him/her.
> I don't want to go through the family/friend route. They don't know how to watch a rough cut
That is actually one of the most important things you can do, if the director and/or producer agree to do it.
I have one director I partner up with the most -- 13 years and counting now. We always do screenings for non-filmmakers (looking for as few family members and close friends as possible). Filmmakers often pay attention to the wrong thing, and they are often not an accurate representation of how the film works on a normal viewer.
When we do the screenings, I don't watch the film -- I watch the viewers. I feel the vibe in the room. You can get a lot of useful information by doing this.
Afterwards we'll get notes, but it's important for you to hear or read the notes and then interpret them. You cannot take the comments of ordinary viewers at face value. I always refer to the Walter Murch "referred pain" idea. When a viewer says, "Scene X bores me", it is not his/her job to tell you why -- s/he will usually get it wrong anyway. It is your job to figure out: "They're bored because I didn't establish the character enough" or "They're bored because the scene's too short, there's no build".
Read the viewers; don't obey them. Trying to take their notes at face value is like a doctor expecting a patient to tell him what the disease is. You look at the symptoms, you listen to what the patient says, and then you have to put the whole picture together, not let the patient lead you astray.
www.derekmok.com
|
Re: OT: notes on a short movie December 11, 2012 11:02PM |
> Regarding showing the movie to family members I was talking about the rough cuts... I think you are talking about the finished product, or close to it.
No, not necessarily.
First of all, if you're really in the very, very rough stages, you and the director should really know what to do about it.
Second, even if a group of viewers is unable to deal with un-colour-corrected shots and unfinished sound, you can still get useful information. The key is, again, in choosing what to listen to, and in determining what is getting the response.
Third, you shouldn't think in promo terms. Promos are all about pretty colours and music. Narrative film is much more about content. Viewers will accept grungy picture and sound if it doesn't hurt their eyes and ears too much (examples: Down to the Bone, The Blair Witch Project, Breaking the Waves). Lifted, the 2008 short my director partner and I did, had to have 60 per cent of its dialogue ADRed. I know how bad the sound was because I had to boost it up around 24dB just to make the film comprehensible. And even with that, we did screenings for both filmmakers and non-filmmakers, because waiting for the sound to be mixed simply wasn't an option, given that we had Skywalker Sound doing the mix, and it wasn't like we could do a rough cut, have them mix, ADR and foley it, then marry it to picture, cut again, and send it to them again. So the director and I just used our experience to figure out which viewer notes were true performance, story, structure and pacing issues, and which were technical issues that would disappear once the film was finished.
When this director and I started out, we had a 24-minute short, A-Alike (I showed part of it at a LAFCPUG meet a few years ago) where there was one particular scene. Everybody else told us to cut off the end of it, but none of them convinced us. And then one directing mentor gave us the note, but gave us a good reason: "If you don't let the two characters reconcile, the next scene has higher stakes". Presto. We now knew where to end the scene, how much to cut out, and why, and we never looked back.
Notes don't make a film better. Your take on the notes is what makes the film better.
I don't know if you were at the LAFCPUG meet where I showed A-Alike. I told the story about how our first cut was something like 37 minutes long, and our second cut was 20 minutes. The 37-minute cut would have bored the crap out of every audience. But it's also my opinion that the director and I really didn't need input to cut out those 17 minutes. The only difference is that we were such close collaborators at that point that we took three weeks to get to a point that would usually have taken other filmmaker teams months.
If you get stuck on what to do with a film, take a risk. Eliminate something good. Put back something that seemed terrible. Unless you shake up your own assumptions, you'll still be stuck.
www.derekmok.com
No, not necessarily.
First of all, if you're really in the very, very rough stages, you and the director should really know what to do about it.
Second, even if a group of viewers is unable to deal with un-colour-corrected shots and unfinished sound, you can still get useful information. The key is, again, in choosing what to listen to, and in determining what is getting the response.
Third, you shouldn't think in promo terms. Promos are all about pretty colours and music. Narrative film is much more about content. Viewers will accept grungy picture and sound if it doesn't hurt their eyes and ears too much (examples: Down to the Bone, The Blair Witch Project, Breaking the Waves). Lifted, the 2008 short my director partner and I did, had to have 60 per cent of its dialogue ADRed. I know how bad the sound was because I had to boost it up around 24dB just to make the film comprehensible. And even with that, we did screenings for both filmmakers and non-filmmakers, because waiting for the sound to be mixed simply wasn't an option, given that we had Skywalker Sound doing the mix, and it wasn't like we could do a rough cut, have them mix, ADR and foley it, then marry it to picture, cut again, and send it to them again. So the director and I just used our experience to figure out which viewer notes were true performance, story, structure and pacing issues, and which were technical issues that would disappear once the film was finished.
When this director and I started out, we had a 24-minute short, A-Alike (I showed part of it at a LAFCPUG meet a few years ago) where there was one particular scene. Everybody else told us to cut off the end of it, but none of them convinced us. And then one directing mentor gave us the note, but gave us a good reason: "If you don't let the two characters reconcile, the next scene has higher stakes". Presto. We now knew where to end the scene, how much to cut out, and why, and we never looked back.
Notes don't make a film better. Your take on the notes is what makes the film better.
I don't know if you were at the LAFCPUG meet where I showed A-Alike. I told the story about how our first cut was something like 37 minutes long, and our second cut was 20 minutes. The 37-minute cut would have bored the crap out of every audience. But it's also my opinion that the director and I really didn't need input to cut out those 17 minutes. The only difference is that we were such close collaborators at that point that we took three weeks to get to a point that would usually have taken other filmmaker teams months.
If you get stuck on what to do with a film, take a risk. Eliminate something good. Put back something that seemed terrible. Unless you shake up your own assumptions, you'll still be stuck.
www.derekmok.com
|
Re: OT: notes on a short movie December 11, 2012 11:49PM |
> Since we showed the first rough we lost our spontaneity and started to think in terms of "addressing notes".
That happens with the best of us. Hell, just six hours in the editing room can get you hypnotized so that you only see the small things (eg. if a cut is smooth), and you miss out on the big things (eg. is a performance good, whether you can open a scene later, does a scene even belong in the movie).
One of the most important solutions is distance. Working a scene/editing session harder doesn't mean you'll work it better. If you think you're gelling up -- a telltale sign is indecision, lack of clarity in your creative decisions -- leave the editing station. Go stretch your arms and legs, close your eyes for five minutes, play some music. I often have a guitar handy around my editing station when I work at home. Playing an instrument gets you out of "intellectual" mode and into a rawer, more emotional space that is great for recharging your creative perspective, and the mechanical aspects loosen you up physically, like an exercise. I keep a stash of warped MP3s of songs that I've cannibalized so that everything is off pitch. When the editing starts to bore me, I take a listen. It gets me a good brainless laugh and loosens me up.
Once you lock a cut, unless the director or producer vehemently objects, leave the editing station for a few days. Ideally I'd let the cut rest for one to two weeks, but that may not always be allowed. Burn a DVD of your cut, and after a few days, watch it at home, on your TV, while eating dinner, in your underwear. Yes, I'm serious. Taking yourself out of the editing room is one of the most important things you can do to snap yourself out of the role of "editor" and into the crucial role of "viewer". Take notes as you watch, and don't stop the film no matter what. The stop-start nature of working in the editing room really screws with our ability to see the big picture.
When I'm on the clock and such downtime isn't possible, I keep things fresh by changing my task around. I do the first cut fast, and I don't sweat about perfecting it. I move on to another scene quickly so that the first scene doesn't become stale. That method makes you do more surprising things ("perfecting" things also tends to take out any element of risk), and encourages bold decisions which may not always turn out to be right, but are always informative. And I've stated it many times -- no cut is good without the sequence around it, no sequence is good without the scene around it, and no scene is good without a film around it. If you obsess over minutiae, you lose the big picture. Let the other scenes inform you of how your scene is working.
www.derekmok.com
That happens with the best of us. Hell, just six hours in the editing room can get you hypnotized so that you only see the small things (eg. if a cut is smooth), and you miss out on the big things (eg. is a performance good, whether you can open a scene later, does a scene even belong in the movie).
One of the most important solutions is distance. Working a scene/editing session harder doesn't mean you'll work it better. If you think you're gelling up -- a telltale sign is indecision, lack of clarity in your creative decisions -- leave the editing station. Go stretch your arms and legs, close your eyes for five minutes, play some music. I often have a guitar handy around my editing station when I work at home. Playing an instrument gets you out of "intellectual" mode and into a rawer, more emotional space that is great for recharging your creative perspective, and the mechanical aspects loosen you up physically, like an exercise. I keep a stash of warped MP3s of songs that I've cannibalized so that everything is off pitch. When the editing starts to bore me, I take a listen. It gets me a good brainless laugh and loosens me up.
Once you lock a cut, unless the director or producer vehemently objects, leave the editing station for a few days. Ideally I'd let the cut rest for one to two weeks, but that may not always be allowed. Burn a DVD of your cut, and after a few days, watch it at home, on your TV, while eating dinner, in your underwear. Yes, I'm serious. Taking yourself out of the editing room is one of the most important things you can do to snap yourself out of the role of "editor" and into the crucial role of "viewer". Take notes as you watch, and don't stop the film no matter what. The stop-start nature of working in the editing room really screws with our ability to see the big picture.
When I'm on the clock and such downtime isn't possible, I keep things fresh by changing my task around. I do the first cut fast, and I don't sweat about perfecting it. I move on to another scene quickly so that the first scene doesn't become stale. That method makes you do more surprising things ("perfecting" things also tends to take out any element of risk), and encourages bold decisions which may not always turn out to be right, but are always informative. And I've stated it many times -- no cut is good without the sequence around it, no sequence is good without the scene around it, and no scene is good without a film around it. If you obsess over minutiae, you lose the big picture. Let the other scenes inform you of how your scene is working.
www.derekmok.com
|
Re: OT: notes on a short movie December 12, 2012 06:19AM |
I'm going to agree with Derek in a shorter form. Let anyone you trust watch it with you. Anytime you feel awkward or worried during the film, note that what's going on there needs to change.
For the first draft you don't even really have to have a discussion with the person afterwards most of the time. You should, because it's polite, but the real value is that you will see the film in a new light with someone else in the room. Things you may have previously glossed over suddenly seem screamingly lumpy.
For the first draft you don't even really have to have a discussion with the person afterwards most of the time. You should, because it's polite, but the real value is that you will see the film in a new light with someone else in the room. Things you may have previously glossed over suddenly seem screamingly lumpy.
|
Re: OT: notes on a short movie December 12, 2012 07:50AM |
Usually I do show my cuts. Sometimes to an assistant editor, sometimes to another editor, sometimes to a producer. But what I usually do is to pick up the reaction from the whoever is watching it. If they laugh at the right places, it means the cut works.
www.strypesinpost.com
www.strypesinpost.com
|
Re: OT: notes on a short movie December 12, 2012 04:08PM |
There's no fine art in gauging a screening. Just remember that most people can understand a good story when watching one, but not many can craft it. So don't try to get direct feedback on the editing, but rather gauge based on their reactions.
www.strypesinpost.com
www.strypesinpost.com
|
Re: OT: notes on a short movie December 13, 2012 03:57PM |
> those are fair indicators that you're not at picture lock.
But you also can't take every viewer reaction or note for granted.
Every film has some viewers it will simply not impress no matter what. Some people hate a film because of an actor in it. Some people hate a film because of its look. Some people can't enjoy a film normally when they know they're expected to criticize. And some people just have attention deficit and value their cell-phone IMs more than the moviegoing experience. There is nothing you can do about it.
Every film that tries to appeal to the six-to-80 demographic ends up blander than white bread, because even white bread isn't liked by 100 per cent of the demographic.
At some point, you, the director and the producers have to decide if you're simply going to say, "Viewer, you don't like this decision, live with it." Trying to appeal to every viewer is as misguided as listening only to your mother's notes. There's a reason why market research and test screenings can have such erratic results.
Judgment, not blind acceptance.
www.derekmok.com
But you also can't take every viewer reaction or note for granted.
Every film has some viewers it will simply not impress no matter what. Some people hate a film because of an actor in it. Some people hate a film because of its look. Some people can't enjoy a film normally when they know they're expected to criticize. And some people just have attention deficit and value their cell-phone IMs more than the moviegoing experience. There is nothing you can do about it.
Every film that tries to appeal to the six-to-80 demographic ends up blander than white bread, because even white bread isn't liked by 100 per cent of the demographic.
At some point, you, the director and the producers have to decide if you're simply going to say, "Viewer, you don't like this decision, live with it." Trying to appeal to every viewer is as misguided as listening only to your mother's notes. There's a reason why market research and test screenings can have such erratic results.
Judgment, not blind acceptance.
www.derekmok.com
|
Re: OT: notes on a short movie December 13, 2012 06:37PM |
>I catch myself wanting to criticize/analyse way too much when I do watch other's material submitted for
>feedback.
And this is why you don't get feedback on how to edit the film. Not from a general audience anyway. You'll end up with too many cooks, and a mish mash of editing ideas isn't going to let you have a cohesive cut. It's the general reaction that should be feedback for the cut. If they don't get a punchline, the set up for it could be weak.
www.strypesinpost.com
>feedback.
And this is why you don't get feedback on how to edit the film. Not from a general audience anyway. You'll end up with too many cooks, and a mish mash of editing ideas isn't going to let you have a cohesive cut. It's the general reaction that should be feedback for the cut. If they don't get a punchline, the set up for it could be weak.
www.strypesinpost.com
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
