My
job in the production group, as the editor, was to construct a narrative that
mimicked the director’s vision (Chris’s) in a way that was both entertaining
and clear. “An editor’s responsibility,
as Murch sees it, is “partly to anticipate, partly to control the thought
processes of the audience. To give them what they want and/or what they need
just before they have to ‘ask’ for it – to be surprising yet self-evident at
the same time.””[1; Pg 208] Achieving this in an effective manner
required me to collaborate with all members of our small production crew on a
variety of different topics.
This
collaboration started during pre-production, which as an editor I should
conventionally be distancing myself from to remain completely objective towards
the film when it came to cutting it. “Don’t
unnecessarily allow yourself to be
impregnated by the conditions of shooting.”[2; Pg 24] However
due to the size of our groups and the length of time the majority of us have
worked with each other, we all help each other out where and when they can to
ensure the whole filming process is as smooth as possible.
I
attended all the pre-production meetings where we discussed the film well as a
group, bringing up any personal or technical concerns we had with all the
aspects of the project to address them early on so they don’t cause us problems
further down the line. I discussed the stop motion and green screen shots with
Chris so we both knew what the other expected in terms of the finished product.
This also applies to our discussions about how certain scenes or shots would
cut into one another and if we both thought they would work to enhance the
narrative or not. We used films such as Wes Anderson’s Grand Budapest Hotel
(2014) and Vince Villigan’s Breaking Bad (2008-2013) as visual references to
help each other understand the others vision. As me and Chris have worked on a
large number of shoots together, we both feel comfortable expressing opinions
critical of each other’s work, as we know we have the films best interests at
heart.
My
main contribution at this stage was creating my own marked up script that
involved me annotating the finished script with notes on how I personally
visualised the film. I collaborated with both Chris and Matt, the cinematographer,
by comparing our scripts and discussing the best way we could shoot the film to
tell the narrative clearly. Through this process we constructed a rough, master
shot list that compiled of all our contributions that Chris and Matt continued
to edit up until the production shoot days.
On
the set I mainly acted as a runner and extra pair of hands for the rest of the
crew, pitching in when and where I could e.g. helping move props, help building
sets, changing camera lens’ e.c.t. The majority of the collaboration I did at
this time was with Chris, especially when the shot list had to be changed due
to unforeseeable problems such as actors arriving late or leaving early. We
discussed how to work around these problems by adding in or cutting out shots
and if this would still make the sequence work in the edit or affect the
narrative in any way. I also had to collaborate with Matt and Jay, the art
director, when attempting to solve these problems, mainly to check if the
continuity in any of the altered shots didn’t match previous ones.
My
actual designated role on set was to do the clapperboard that aided both the
sound designer, Luke, and myself when it came to post-production by cutting
down the time it took to label, sync and find the desired takes.
In terms
of the workload, the post-production stage was my most active time in the
filmmaking process, so collaborating was essential to make it run smoothly.
However, when creating the first assembly, I worked alone to apply my own
personal ‘look’ and view point to the film by editing in my own style. I’ve
found I have a similar style to Shelton Kahn, editor of One Flew Over the
Cuckoo’s Nest (1975), as I prioritise performance over other aspects such as
continuity. “I think that different
editors do bring a certain look to a film. I am what I could call a
“performance editor,” always looking for the best performance from the actors…”[3;
Pg 21] This is because I personally feel the performance is the driving
force in a film and is what the audience engage with the most.
After
the first assembly I began to work with the director during some editing
sessions, showing him each major new stage of the cut so he could approve or
make changes when necessary, before we showed it to the tutors for feedback. When
we got to the rough cut stage I began to collaborate with Luke more by giving
him a list of the takes we were using in each scene so he had time to clean up
the dialogue and prepare any foley that may need to be recorded. When I got to
the fine cut stage, Chris and myself worked together consistently as the
narrative structure wasn’t going to be changed and it was just putting the
final touches to creating his image. I was always mindful to listen to Chris’s
feedback and opinions throughout the editing process, as it is ultimately his
film that I was creating. “An editor
should follow his own instinct when it comes to editing, unless the director
has given the editor certain directions or instructions.“[4; Pg 32]
After
getting the film to picture lock, I sent it over to Luke so he could begin to
construct the soundtrack and then I started the colour grade. Chris, Matt and
myself all gave our inputs on how we thought the grade should look by going
through scene by scene and showing each other our ideas. We, once again, used
other films as examples so we could understand the reasoning behind each
other’s decisions, for example the over exaggerated yellow grade in Wes
Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom (2012).
Even
though everyone worked well together as a group, there were still some problems
during the filmmaking process, the biggest one being the headmaster scene. At
every stage in the editing process we received feedback from the tutors
criticising various aspects of it, the major one being its length as it was
just one person talking to camera. This wasn’t helped by the problematic
performance where the actor seemed to be searching for lines constantly causing
the pace to be basically none existent. We addressed theses issues by being
brutal with the dialogue by cutting out around 4 minutes of it partly to
improve the pace but also to cut out any unnecessary exposition that told the
audience the whole films message only 4 minutes into it. “You’ve got to be very
careful, I believe, as the storyteller not to let the audience get ahead of
you. And sometimes giving them less information and letting them fill in as the
story goes is better than giving them all the information immediately”[3; Pg 19]
Another problem we encountered was the green screen dream sequences as originally they were going to be shot on location and not on green screen. This required Chris and myself to come up with a creative solution to this problem and after brainstorming a few ideas we decided to use stop motion as a backdrop. This actually worked very effectively in the film as it allowed the audience to see the world from Daniel’s perspective and empathise with him more. The art direction also played a big part in this due to the collaboration between the director, art director and cinematographer, as it ultimately gave the film a very distinct visual style.
Finally Isaac, who played Daniel, gave a
very natural and authentic performance throughout the majority of the scenes.
However this was because on set Chris would ask me if I was happy when we had
to do retakes to get a second opinion on the performance which proved very
beneficial in the end.
Our
group as a whole has worked professionally and effectively through all the
stages of production in Daniel’s Kite, which I believe is reflected in the finished
film. When faced with problems we communicated well and came up with creative
and intuitive solutions that ultimately benefitted the film. Throughout this
project my collaborative skills have improved, especially with the director
Chris, strengthening our group’s already robust connection. In turn, this has
improved my own skills as an editor through peer feedback and group
discussions, which I have transferred over to the film. I personally think I
have achieved my goal of putting together an entertaining and stylised film by
effectively portraying the films themes and engaging the audience in the
narrative, without drawing attention towards any of the problems I listed
earlier. “G: you spend so much time at it, wouldn’t you
want the audience to know what you do? H:
Well, we don’t want the audience to know it’s a film. [Carl] I think film
editing is like the editing of Vogue or Cosmopolitan… It’s their
responsibility, if I’m not mistaken, to throw out what’s not so good to read or
what’s not a good picture.”[3; Pg 96]
Bibliography
1.
Charles Koppelman (2005); Behind the Seen: How Walter Murch edited Cold
Mountain using Apple’s Final Cut Pro and what this means for cinema; US: New
Riders
2.
Murch, Walter (1988); In the Blink of an Eye; New York: Viking Press
3. Gabriella Oldham (1992); First Cut: Conversations with Film Editors;
USA: University of California Press
4. Vincent LoBrutto (1991); Selected Takes: Film Editors on Editing;
New York: Praeger Publishers
No comments:
Post a Comment