- This topic has 4 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 4 hours, 31 minutes ago by
.
-
Topic
-
Dear Mr Deakins, I have just read this passage in your REFLECTIONS book:
“Films change from the script, through budgeting, scouting, storyboarding, and rehearsals, and on set when the actors and the day bring their own inspiration. But it’s not until the final edit that the film becomes what it is.”
I can embrace all the changes and love the challenge and unexpected magic the constant shape-shifting of a film brings, but I almost always suffer when I see the film take new paths in the edit. I am rarely if ever involved in the creative decisions made there and the directors I have worked with, sometimes at least, have seemingly forgotten the conceptual thoughts put into the visual structure and flow imagined for the scene. These directors I have worked with are often more actor-oriented, not very technical in their nature (like a Fincher or Hitchcock, from what I have heard). It has even lead me to consider a switch to editing, because I care for the story in the end, not so much about the technicalities and “toys” on the set – but where am I more involved, in the dream phase of the prep and the realities of the shoot OR in the editing room, potentially with dozens of opinions behind my back as an editing program nowadays is understood by so many more people then for example lighting is… I hope I am not rambling too much.
I wonder, how did you deal with such frustrations? Have you experienced something like that? Maybe with “Jesse James”, in yours and James Podcast you said you always loved the Directors Cut more. That must be so frustrating as those are seen much more rarely. Have you learned to “let go” and was there a moment in your career that that initiated that?
@hannomertin
Cinematography Student | Filmakademie Baden-Wuerttemberg
-
Replies
-
I think that it has something to do with remembering that it’s actually the director’s movie, not the cinematographer’s one (i think Roger said something like that in an episode) and so accept it as an aspect of working as a professional cinematographer.
By the way, i have the very same doubt you have, but while editing my little short i noticed a thing. The more i focused on rythm and storytelling, the more i found easy to “let go” shots, even cool ones or complicated ones that required me a lot of effort. Perhaps visually interesting shots but useless in the storytelling. The script and the shot list followed a scheme, but when i begun altering it in the editing phase, taking away things, changing the order of scenes, making them shorter and more focused, forgetting that i shot them and considering them as a work of another person, then i finally found my story and everything begun working together in a nice way. If you spend hours on a shot you are very attached to it. But you need fresh eyes and a different mind to understand if that shots really helps the story, that’s what i learned so far!
I’m reading “In the Blink of an Eye” and Walter Murch describes this problem as “seeing around the edge of the frame”, in other words considering everything that was around the camera while shooting the scene (and that’s why he writes that an editor should know possibly nothing about how the scene was shot) to focus only on the narrative aspect of the editing and not on the human factor (effort, struggles, mood on the set etc etc) that lead to that shot. The idea i’ve had reading the book is that the editor is on the audience side, not on the crew one, since must see things how the audience will. Not the best thing for the DoP i guess, but in theory the best for the movie.
A film always changes in the edit. The process is not robotic. But, that said, there were only 5 shots that we made for Barton Fink that do not appear in the final cut. The final version of Jesse James is cut in the originally conceived pattern but the film is shorter. The edit was condensed and the final scripted and shot 20 minutes of the story were taken out.
There is no way to be obsessed about a shot that is not used or a move that is truncated. The director and editor are only trying to create the best film out of the material. If you have all been in sync during prep the resulting film will be true to your intent, if not exactly the same as how you shot it.
My disappointment is with my own contribution or, and this is very rarely, with a musical score that has been added.
Thank you Luca and Roger for your replies, I agree with all you said. My original post was done shortly after seeing another edit of one of my short films where the films structure had been changed heavily, so much so that none of the conversations and thoughts me and the director had before the shoot were still recognizable in the film – as it can happen in films, the errors were already in the script but all of us failed to see them. You are of course correct, the editor and the director are only trying to make the best film possible out of the material – there might be differences in overall taste though, I assume that is normal to learn project by project who your collaborators are that you want to keep working with forever as the tastes align. Also on the editing side.
I agree and disagree that it is “the directors movie”, but if I had to decide between my mixed feelings on this subject, I would lean towards yes, it is in the end the director who is creatively wrestling with the project the earliest and the longest. That`s their power and their pain I guess.
It all goes to show how very very important it is to get really well in sync in prep, something I see Roger emphasize all the time as well. I am just wrapping another short film and in the weeks before, the director, me and the editor had extensive discussions about the shotlist and breakdown of each scene. It was such a satisfying process and now that I know that the editor was involved, and as he is sending in first assembly cuts of scenes rather exactly based on the breakdown that we had planned and shot, I have waaay less frustrations. I can see for myself, hah that shot really is not necessary or stands out oddly in some way and even wish for it to be removed. I personally find it rather bewildering that editors are supposed to be “shielded” from the creative vision that was found in prep by the DP and Director, I agree though that it can be very counter productive if the editor is part of the sets struggles. So, in this project, I feel very very good with how I have been involved and my visions, the directors and the editors were aligned.
@hannomertin
Cinematography Student | Filmakademie Baden-Wuerttemberg
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.