Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 075 – EditCon 2022: Learning from the Best

The Editor's Cut - Episode 75 - EditCon 2022: Learning from the Best

Episode 075 - EditCon 2022: Learning from the Best

Today’s episode is part 3 of our 4 part series covering EditCon 2022 Brave New World.

Today’s panel is Learning from the Best – Documentary editing is a craft of perpetual learning. Not only do our tools change constantly, but so do approaches to storytelling. Mentorship has long been at the heart of developing the next generation of talent in all mediums, and documentary is no exception. It can be difficult for new and aspiring editors to gain access to the suite to sit, watch, listen, and learn the intangible skill of editing. Pull up a seat as two apprentices interview their mentors on their approach to storytelling, and the importance of passing the torch to the next generation.

This episode is generously sponsored by Adobe.

Adobe EditCon 2021 Sponsor

À écouter ici !

The Editor’s Cut – Episode 075 – EditCon 2022: Learning from the Best

Sarah Taylor:

This episode was generously sponsored by Adobe.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

The mentee has a lot to offer the mentor. I think that’s maybe a misconception about mentorship is that it’s a top-down approach. And it’s somebody who’s, I’m going to show you, you know, I’m going to teach you X, Y, and Z. But, I think one thing that’s come across really obviously in all of the conversations we’ve had here is that openness and honesty, and it has to be a two-way conversation.

Brina Romanek:

Feeling like you have a safe space to make mistakes and to play. You know? Because I think, end of the day, one of the most fun things about editing is that you get to play.

Ricardo Acosta, CCE:

I would use one word, is empathy and respect. And also, knowing that you are working with a very particular part of our being, which is our fragility, our insecurity, our gift as artists. The fact that none of those things are absolute, but they’re all part of our humanity.

Sarah Taylor:

Hello and welcome to The Editor’s Cut. I’m your host Sarah Taylor. We would like to point out that the lands on which we have created this podcast and that many of you may be listening to us from are part of ancestral territory. It is important for all of us to deeply acknowledge that we are on ancestral territory that has long served as a place where indigenous peoples have lived, met, and interacted. We honour, respect, and recognize these nations that have never relinquished their rights or sovereign authority over the lands and waters on which we stand today. We encourage you to reflect on the history of the land, the rich culture, the many contributions, and the concerns that impact indigenous individuals and communities. Land acknowledgements are the start to a deeper action.

Today’s episode is part three of our four-part series covering EditCon 2022, Brave New World. Documentary editing is a craft of perpetual learning. Not only do our tools change constantly, but so do approaches to storytelling. Mentorship has long been at the heart of developing the next generation of talent in all mediums, and documentary is no exception. It can be difficult for new and aspiring editors to gain access to the suite, to sit, watch, listen, and learn the intangible skill of editing. Pull up a seat as two apprentices interview their mentors on their approach to storytelling and the importance of passing the torch to the next generation.

 

[show open]

And action.

This is The Editor’s Cut.

A CCE podcast.

Exploring, exploring, exploring the art

of picture editing.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

Welcome to Learning from the Best. My name is Chris Mutton. I’ll be your moderator for our panel today. We have an exciting discussion lined up that will hopefully bring out a better understanding of mentorship. Mentorship can be kind of hard to define, comes in many forms, from mentors who follow a lecture format in a large group all the way down to one-on-one mentor pairs. So today we’ll be hearing from two such pairs. We’ll start off with our first group, hear about their experience. Then we’ll move on to our second group. And lastly, sort of bring everybody together for an informal round table discussion. And I’ll be taking a backseat for the most part.

We’re going to try something a little new and have our conversations led by our mentees. In our first group, we have multiple award-winning documentary filmmaker and editor Michèle Hozer. With over 40 documentary editing credits, including the critically acclaimed Shake Hands with The Devil and her directorial debut, Sugar Coated, she is a mainstay of the Canadian doc world in Canada. Michèle is joined by her mentee, Brina Romanek, a documentary filmmaker and editor of the Lifestyle documentary Radical Retirees and editor of the doc feature a Cure for the Common Classroom, which she edited with Michèle’s guidance. Welcome Michèle and Brina.

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

Hi, thank you.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

In our second mentorship pair, we are joined by Ricardo Acosta, CCE. Also a household name in documentary editing in Canada. Ricardo won the CCE award for best editing in documentary for Marmato in 2014, and is the editor of acclaimed films 15 to Life, The Silence of Others, and Herman’s House. He’s joined by mentee and documentary editor Jordan Kawai. Jordan holds his master’s degree in media studies from Ryerson and has assisted and edited documentaries including Bangla Surf Girls, in which Ricardo served as mentor and story editor. Welcome Ricardo and Jordan. And just to start things off, Jordan, how did you meet Ricardo and how did this mentorship begin with you guys?

Jordan Kawai:

I first met Ricardo when I was in graduate school at Ryerson, the documentary media MFA. And Ricardo was brought in for a class critique and I shared a piece of my film and had Ricardo give me some criticism about it, which was the very first time I met him. And then fast-forward two years later, I met Ricardo again in a job opportunity where I would be assisting Ricardo in a film that was produced by the NFB. And at that time it was called Hispaniola. The name later changed to Stateless.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

Awesome. How was it like to have Ricardo look at your work?

Jordan Kawai:

I mean, it was one of those interesting things where I– it was kind of like, foreshadowing a lot of the conversations that were to come. A lot of things surrounding, yeah, simplicity and minimalism and that, and one of the mantras that I kind of, like I always tell Ricardo, at the beginning of every project, I write at the top of my notebook which is “Surrender yourself to your footage.” And that was one of the first things that he had said to me, and that was something that I kind of brought forward later in all my projects.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

Excellent. All right. I’ll let you take it away. Go for it.

Jordan Kawai:

Yeah, So Ricardo, when we first met, we had– it was an interview for the project Hispaniola. And at that point in time I was assist editing on a few projects and a lot of them—a lot of my role at that point was moreso coming in and making sure, as assistant editor, that the project was—you know, the wheels were all oiled and it was all afloat. And one of the first things that you said, was kind of like, music to my ears, I was pining for an opportunity to work collaboratively and kind of, shadow an editor and director. And, I don’t know if you remember saying this to me, but you said you didn’t want, an assistant editor who was just going to be a ghost in the room, and you wanted someone who was kind of there for the process. And, I was wondering how that kind of came to be and why that’s what you wanted at that point in time for that project.

Ricardo Acosta, CCE:

You know Jordan, for me, as I had said to you before, I was a wonderful slave slash assistant editor for a while before I started editing my films. But I also was a very privileged assistant editor because I was able to observe and participate of the creative process– on the creative process of the filmmaking. And the storytelling, in the editing suite, and being able to– to be there, in situ, when the director and the editor and the producer were discussing the story. And I have realized that, in the times of digitizing footage, the role of an assistant editor has been diminished to someone who come, in a very impersonal way, when you are not around, to prepare the material for you.

It was becoming more and more a lonely job of an editor with a footage and a director, but where is the assistant on that? And also, where is the assistant that is also a wonderful filmmaker who I can perceive as a great editor, you know– in progress and where that editor will find the role models, the place where that young assistant can learn how to conduct and how to be, and how to– what is the role of an editor in the editing suite. That’s not something you learn in a school, at Ryerson. That’s something that you have to learn also, assisting other editors. I think.

And you know, I saw on you, from the beginning, that the light of a filmmaker, of someone who took his job and his dream of telling stories very seriously. And the way you talk about editing, I went like, “Okay, this is a fantastic opportunity.” Because a lot of people do not have that drive. And for me it was very, very special at that moment to say, “Okay, here is someone who can also be my buddy in the editing suite.”

Jordan Kawai:

What I really appreciated early on when I was working with you, Ricardo was watching rushes together. And I think as someone who was kind of new to that realm and new to that industry of just… Well, I kind of– What I learned from screening live with you and you would start watching rushes and you’d hit that space bar, pause it, and then you would ask me, “What is the heart of this scene for you?” And I think throwing that question and always having that ability to stop and pause and really be on the ball of figuring out if you shake this down, what it is at the heart of something or the spirit of something.

Ricardo Acosta, CCE:

At the end of the day we have to deal with tools of dramaturgia to put together a story and it’s a four-minute story. What is the heart of that? What we are doing, we might be wrong, we might be having challenge in finding what is the best. But we have to really be brave and go for it. And based on that thing that we find that is the heart and the most meaningful, build around that. Which is what we did in that scene, also, no? Start embroidering around that idea. How do we present that? Because for me, ultimately, it’s a choreography that is not dictated by the brain only, but also by the emotion of the moment of the story that we are trying to tell. And also of the character. What the character needs and not so much about what I want the character to do, sometimes.

Jordan Kawai:

This was part of a film where that character’s arc didn’t actually make it into the feature film. It was actually– That whole character was then used for a short film that I edited later, which ended up being the opening scene in a different variation way for that film. But it was interesting because there was a lot of elements and a lot of devices that were also part of the feature. And one of them being the use of radio. And I remember Ricardo, early on, one of the obstacles was how to give a lot of the backstory and context of what was happening, between Dominican Republic and Haiti, and this idea of using radio not just for context piece, but to show some of that temperature of what some of the antagonism between those two countries were. So this idea that radio is something that is pepper corned and interwoven throughout the entire piece. For this particular scene, I remember it being more of an exercise about visual storytelling and that’s one of the things that I was really excited about when Ricardo and I worked on this was to not use any voice at the beginning. The radio wasn’t used at the beginning and just try to create a story of one of the protagonists’ father living in Dominican Republic and he was born in Haiti and just showing his daily routine of going to work in the sugar cane fields.

Ricardo Acosta, CCE:

One thing that we do is spend a lot of time also talking, and for me, it’s very important that my assistant editor or the associate editor is part of those conversations when we are looking at rushes of footage and then sharing with the director what I saw. What I saw sometimes could be a little bit different to what the director saw and he compliments that, but also to what I can foreshadow in the scenes that we find very powerful and how the story we want to tell can be enhanced with the elements, the jewels of this—you know– that are hidden within the footage. And one thing for me that was very important always was there is a subliminal character of hate here, which is on the way in the radio wave. And that it was a thermometer, as you said, of the temperature of the hate speech and the hostility against Haitians in the country.

I always remember we spent a lot of time also talking and sharing with you with what I call the rituals of the footage of the character, of the subject, of the story. And what is the impression that we are painting with a scene that will then become part of a bigger impression that we are painting with the whole story and the whole film. And one thing that I find with you, that we are very much enjoying in our collaboration, is how you understand that and how you incorporate that. We also have these conversations about… It’s complex because sometimes young editors have a hard time having something emotionally because they come from a brain is sometimes perception of everything is about the intellect and not about the emotion. And I come from a different kind of experience with you where I always said to you, it’s more about what you don’t see and what you feel, the way you are trying to compose.

And it’s also always for us not about the trend, but about the essence. And those are things that we, Jordan and me, spend a lot of time talking about when we’re editing and sharing. Sometimes, I also like to do something like, when I’m cutting something and I think I’m excited about it, I will ask him, look what I did. And this idea of sharing like a tutorial, and a discovery with a friend and it’s also about sharing with him why I made the choices that I made. Why? Because I think that all I can share in my mentoring of someone who I think is a great editor on his own and it’s a little bit of my own creative process and my fears and my accomplishments, but there is no book about that.

Jordan Kawai:

One thing I think I’ve gleaned from you, mainly from your relationships with directors, but also I feel that towards you as well is this, is how trust plays in that relationship and how you build that and how that can really obviously really shape a film because it’s a process to begin with.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

I think that’s really a hard thing to teach. Right? And it’s interesting because there’s so many hard skills to editing, but one of the soft skills is all the people stuff in the edit suite and how you deal with a director in the edit suite and how you deal with their emotions as they look at their film coming together and maybe what their expectations were against what’s happening can be very emotional for them. And that kind of skill is so different from Codex and hard drives and all that other stuff that’s in the background. So it’s interesting. I think that is a really important part of mentorship is those people skills.

Ricardo Acosta, CCE:

So we are collaborating in a film called Betrayal right now and there’s a scene where the director is on the scene. The first time she met the subject, the subject used to be in Canada. He got evicted from Canada and now he’s living in a country in Africa. And the first time that she met the subject is there, in Africa in a refugee camp. And when I was looking at the footage I see that moment, which was filmed in a very informal way because no one ever thought that this going to be part of the story, where she said to him, “Oh nice to meet you.” And then he said, “Finally. Nice to meet you.” And has been talking to each other for so long. But that is on camera, in the center of camera. And then what I have for the next 40 minutes, it’s a very raw but honest and warm situation where this man, our main subject is showing to her the refugee camp and talking about, since they have happened to him, that we may know more or not prior to that scene.

So it was very interesting because it was like, okay, this is going to be a very difficult conversation to have with the director to say, okay, we can make a very evasive scene where he’s talking to a ghost and using shots that are not our best. Or we can try to make a scene that is very warm and authentic where you are on it. I knew that was going to be a conversation that was going to be very difficult. But before that, I also shared this with Jordan and asked his opinion. And we both said, okay, let’s prepare each other. And I said to Jordan, “Okay, please support me on presenting this case to the director.”

Chris Mutton, CCE:

Backup.

Jordan Kawai:

Yeah.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

What was the reaction? How’d it go?

Jordan Kawai:

I think it’s ongoing, I would say. Ricardo?

Chris Mutton, CCE:

Oh, okay, all right. Yeah, it’s not quite there yet, eh?

Ricardo Acosta, CCE:

I think that everybody felt the strain of it and the authenticity and Jordan did a great job on putting together a scene that we have choreographed and discussed. And I think it opened a whole new avenue for us also to feel more empowered about how we are going to deal with similar situations through the whole story.

Jordan Kawai:

Yeah, and it’s interesting, Ricardo, that is an example. Because we talked about the idea of surrender yourself to the footage. And I’m thinking about it more and another thing in that example, but in previous films too, where I’ve watched you challenge the footage and I think that means also challenging the director on some of the expectations of what a scene may or may not be. And I find that kind of interesting. What is that dialogue and having that confidence to A, try something but B, to challenge what that scene can possibly be. And I think the one you’re bringing up as an example of that, for sure.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

Thank you very much for the discussion. Hang tight for a bit. We’re going to bring you back in just at the end for a sort of round table chat about mentorship. Now we’ll bring in Michèle and Brina.

Hey, how are you guys doing?

Brina Romanek:

Good, how are you?

Chris Mutton, CCE:

Excellent. Welcome back. Now something that not everybody listening today probably knows is that you guys met through the CCE mentorship pilot program, which started in 2019. So maybe Brina, tell us a little bit about that experience and how you were paired with Michèle.

Brina Romanek:

I was working as an assistant editor at the time and I was already a member of CCE when I got the email. And I really felt similar to what Ricardo was mentioning in terms of this idea of that sometimes the assistant editor is the ghost. I felt like the ghost. And I had made a couple of my own films and I felt like I needed to learn, but I needed someone to help me push my own boundaries. So I applied, and I got accepted, and I found out that I was paired with Michèle, who I then very quickly went and googled.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

I’m sure you were pretty happy when you googled her.

Brina Romanek:

Pretty pleased. Pretty pleased. And very intimidated.

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

Nah.

Brina Romanek:

Starting off, Michèle, I’m kind of curious. I know we’ve talked a little bit about your beginnings, when you started editing and learning from other editors, but I’m curious to know what your experience had been with your own mentors and what made you want to be a part of the program?

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

Well, like Ricardo, I always thought it was important to have an assistant editor in the room while we cut because it could be a lonely job. And I think it’s our obligation to… I mean someone taught me, so I think we should keep that going. And so I always kept editors or assistant editors for most of my work. Many producers and director thought, “Are you crazy? It costs too much to have a full-time assistant editor.” And by the end of the project they always loved the assistants way better than they loved me. And they realized, certainly in a documentary setting, how important the assistant editor is because they know everything about the film very intimately. The assistant editor knows the timeline, knows all the problem shots, knows the music. And when it comes to posting and putting all that together, the assistant editor is key.

And the assistant editor, if they’re a good assistant, helps smooth the waters, calm things down when the editor and the director are fighting or there’s tension in the room, the assistant editor can always come and help keep those things afloat. But in terms of our CCE, I don’t know, I got an email that said, “Would you, you be interested in mentoring?” And I thought, “Okay, why not?” I didn’t know what it would entail. I had no clue that you and I would still be working together on the Buffy film.

And I remember meeting you, do you remember that meeting? We were at Insomnia, I don’t know, three days before the first lockdown.

Brina Romanek:

Yes.

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

And I remember reading your CV and I thought, “Oh wow, she’s 27. She’s directed a few shorts already.” And I thought to myself, “Oh my God, here she is, someone to replace me. Here we go.” And I remember that was my first impression in meeting you. I don’t know, what was your first impression?

Brina Romanek:

As I mentioned to you before, I definitely sweat right through my blouse. I was very nervous. And you were asking me questions that I don’t think I had been asked in a while. Very direct questions about what I wanted to do and where I wanted to go. And I wasn’t even sure whether or not those are maybe things that I kept inside, but I wasn’t sure that I had the confidence to just blurt out. And so I felt a bit like I was in the hot seat, but in a good way. And I left the meeting feeling excited. But also I had been given the opportunity to think more specifically about how I wanted to grow. I think that that was a good start to our relationship.

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

Yeah. And I think you were interested in documentary and I think that’s important. I get a lot of people who come and they want to be fiction writers or dramatic editors or even directors and it’s like, “Why are you coming to me?” But you were very persistent and I think, what did we meet every month or something like that?

Brina Romanek:

Yeah, I think at the beginning it was, we’d have at least a phone call a month. And at first, you watched the films that I had made and gave your thoughts and feedback. And I remember very clearly, you watched my film, A Portrait of Pockets. And afterwards you gave me this note, which I still think about all the time when I’m cutting.

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

I hope it’s a good note.

Brina Romanek:

You said really think about when you are giving breath in between the phrases of what your character is saying and when you are making it a full cohesive run-on sentence, let’s say. And you were saying there were some moments in that film where I had split up and given too much breath in between phrases from the main character of Charmaine and so we lost some of the meaning of the scene. I think it was a very good note. I think about that a lot when we’re cutting now. I’m often thinking about, “Okay, is this an idea that is more clearly comes across when we hear the whole thing? Or is this one of those ideas that we need a moment to pause and breathe in part of what’s being said before we can hear the rest of it?”

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

Yeah. Yeah, you’re right. We did that yesterday on a scene. When do we let Buffy Sainte-Marie say everything she says, and when do you give the pause, right?

Brina Romanek:

Yes.

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

That takes time to figure out and you just re-listen to your scenes over and over again. We’ve been working together for what, two years now? Almost two years. Right now we’re cutting Buffy and now Brina’s taken my place. She’s the editor or co-editor with the director Madison Thompson. Yeah. And I’m story editing with her and maybe giving you too much of a hard time, Brina.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

That’s great. I mean just like Ricardo and Jordan, you guys are now colleagues, which I find is fascinating. It’s great.

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

Yeah, working that scene. Today, you were pretty tired, was it two days? Two days, we’ve been working on the same scene?

Brina Romanek:

Two and a half. And today it was down to the really minute, minute. And there’s a moment where I was like, “Oh my gosh.” But then-

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

I was a moment there when I gave you a note and you were going, “Oh, for fuck sakes. Really? She’s not happy?”

Brina Romanek:

But when I went for a walk and came back and watched it was like, “Yep, it made a big difference.” As stubborn as I was feeling in the moment.

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

I think what was great about this mentorship program… We did a movie club at one point, watched movies and talked, and then I got a call from these producers that I knew and the filmmaker was stuck. They had an assembly, they just couldn’t do the story that they really wanted to do. The film was in trouble, would I cut it? And I’m at a stage in my career where I want to do other things. I don’t want to necessarily work seven days a week or five days a week on a project. And I said, “Look, I’ll story edit. I’ve got this young mentee, she’ll cut it and I’ll story edit it. And I promise you’ll love it.” And I gave you a call, Brina.

I wasn’t sure you were completely on board. I mean, I don’t know, you were very quiet.

Brina Romanek:

Well, I had another project that I was doing currently, but I really wanted to do it. And so I expressed that to you, there’s a bit of a scheduling conflict. And you said, “Well go talk to your parents.” So I got on the phone and I went upstairs because I was quarantining with my parents. And I told them about it and my mom goes, “Well you’re certainly going to work really hard, but it’ll be worth it.” So then I called you back and I said, “Okay.” And away we went. And I’m sure Michèle, you’ll probably attest to this too, but I’m curious to know, because the beginning was a little bumpy. We had to figure out how we were going to work together. And I’m curious to know from your perspective what your expectations were going in. Because I know that I had specific expectations, and it wasn’t necessarily quite like I thought it was going to be, in some ways. And so I’m curious to know if you had any expectations going in?

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

Oh no, tell me yours first. What did you expect?

Brina Romanek:

Well, I think that when we started, I had in my brain that we were going to look at the material and we were going to talk about it and then I was going to go away and have to cut something and sort of prove to you that I could cut. And then we would look at it and discuss and go from there.

And instead, which I am so appreciative of, is you really took the time to first of all, say “When we start cutting, because I am teaching you a certain method of how I organize the project and how I cut. And I’m going to ask you to also follow that method so that I can show you the way that I work.” And it was very specific. Right from the beginning I went, “Okay, this is going to be a very detailed approach.” Which I’m very appreciative of.

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

Yeah, I’m not sure if I had a clear idea of what we were going to do, but I knew I was going to be very hands-on at the beginning. Because I had sold this to these producers and I thought, “Fuck, I hope this is going to work out. I hope I don’t end up working more than I have to.” Or who knows. I thought I knew you and I knew you were very talented and stuff, but I wasn’t completely convinced that I had done the right thing.

Well, you know, it’s that, as I said, you promised the moon in the beginning and hopefully you can deliver. But it worked out. Brina, I think you have enough confidence in who you are and you’re very open to trying things. It was bumpy in the beginning. Just for the audience to know, it was in the middle of Covid still, we shared a screen, we both had clones of material. You had your drive, I had my drive. Whatever we added in the day we would share, so we were always having the same timeline. And then the first thing you cut, I think I took it over right away, which was really bad. But I didn’t know how to explain. It’s like, “Oh shit, let me just show her and she’ll get it.”

And then because also I live in Prince Edward County and the internet is so slow, the lagging thing really was problematic. But we worked it out. We started sending quick times and I think at one point you even said to me, “Is this what’s going to happen all the time? Are you going to just take away my edits? Is this…” So I learned to back off. But also, you picked up very quickly. And after we worked really hard for the first act or so, for the first 20 minutes, then I was really hands-off. And then what we would do is we would talk about the scene in the morning, you would pull the selects, you would cut, call me at lunch if you were in trouble. I was out in the field doing, planting my flowers. And then by the last act I was really hands-off, right?

Brina Romanek:

Yeah. And I will say that, thinking about that, in terms of Buffy, one of the things that you’ve been talking about right now to me is that we’re taking the time right now to find the rhythm and to figure out what the rhythm is. And because we did the last film together and I experienced how it’s that slow turtle start and then you just get on going and you just go, and I don’t know if it comes across this way to you, but I feel like I have a more patience and understanding and “Okay, we have to be slow and deliberate right now and not to stress about the time and just to make sure that we’re finding it.”

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

Right. Yeah, it’s always slower in the beginning. Always much slower in the beginning. And I think, for me as an editor, there’s a couple of things that’s exciting us about being a mentor. One, you are not just teaching the technical, but you have real-time experience of saying, “This is how you do it” because we’re working with the material together. And sharing that experience is completely different than just editing. For me, there was an excitement that all of a sudden, I’m doing something different with the work. I’m not just cutting.

And also, working with someone from the younger generation, you have a different sensibility than what I have. And as an older editor, you can easily get used to mining from the same pot that you’ve always, “Ooh yeah, I did this trick on this film. Let’s go back to this. Let’s go back to this.” With you, you challenge and you give me a different perspective. Because the language of film changes over time. There’s new shortcuts, there’s new ways of expressing things, there is new styles. And working with you has allowed me to be on my toes and not sit back and say, “Oh yeah, I did it all.” No, you challenge that. And I think that that’s great. And by the end, the director and producer stopped talking to me, right? After the wrap cut, that was it. I was out of the picture.

Brina Romanek:

With your flowers.

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

With my flowers, yeah.

Brina Romanek:

That’s another thing which I think I’d love to have you chime in with me on, is my growth, in terms of learning from you about transitions, because that was probably my biggest learning curve. And one of the things that I’m still really focused on working on and getting better at is transitioning between scenes and sometimes even moments.

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

And I think that with time you’ll feel more comfortable with that. But I think that, as an editor, and you’ve got a feature film, there is this feeling of wanting to reach the end. You want to get to the end, you’ve got the weight of the film on your shoulders, and transitions take time. You have to let it breathe. But there is this constant momentum to move forward because of “Oh my god, I’ve only cut two minutes in the last three days. Are you kidding me?” And I think that transitions, as I said, are separate. They’re like putting peaches together. You just sometimes have to undo things and let it sit. Let words reverberate onto other scenes.

So yeah, we talked a lot about that, using sound in transition. There was an important one in the film, just for the audience. It was a character-based film on alternative education. And we had three or four characters. And midway through filming, they too got caught into Covid like everyone else. And that transition was the hardest for you, right?

Brina Romanek:

Yeah, it was really hard. And I remember when I first started cutting it, I did this weird kind of fade out thing and I showed it to you. And you said, “You don’t have to stick to what the footage is giving you. You can throw something in there and kind of turn it on its head.” And you made these suggestions of sound effects that, if you were in this scene, you wouldn’t think that belonged. And I remember you first mentioned that I thought, “She’s crazy. What’s she talking about?” And it was this… What’s that book called? The Art of the Cut. And they talk about the fact that you’re kind of a dream state, so it’s almost real, but then you have the power to bring things into play that wouldn’t actually happen in real life. And that was for me the aha! moment of, “Oh, this is what that book means.”

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

That’s right. And so I think we deliberately build up one of the characters. Again, the film is about alternative education. And each of the characters, each of the kids from the school, had their challenges to overcome. And we deliberately– we decided to have one of the kids overcome their challenge, just meet their goal and just get to the point of transforming into the character he wanted to be. And for us, if you bring that up high and then when Covid hits, the whole world falls apart. And you needed to find a transition to help you do that, right?

Brina Romanek:

Yes.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

I watched the film over the break and one of the things popped into my head was just how appropriate of a film this is to tie into mentorship, because they talk so much about how everybody learns differently and you need to have a catered approach to each person. We all have different ways we learn and understand things. So in these mentor/mentee pairs, you’ve got a unique teaching situation or learning situation where you guys get to know each other as people and your communication styles and how you best learn. And from there, you can really see how it’s an enriching process.

Brina Romanek:

Yeah, and I would also say, to jump off that point you said Chris, about learning about each other. It was a nice way to learn about each other because there were so many discussions that came about up about “What were you like as a kid? What were things that affected you in school or things that impacted you in how you learned?” And it was a really great way to not only get to know Michèle as a teacher, but also to get to know her as a person.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

Amazing. Well, it seems like a great time to maybe bring everybody back in. So we’ll have Jordan and Ricardo join us again. So to start this off with everybody, I just wanted to ask one question to each of you. And that question is, what does an effective mentorship mean to you? And Jordan, let’s start with you. What does an effective mentorship mean to you personally?

Jordan Kawai:

Well, I found it really interesting when Brina and Michèle were talking about part of their mentorship program, watching films together and dialoguing with that. And I think mentorship for me is being in dialogue with what moves you. And I find when you watch a film together, not when you’re just cutting, but when you’re– as an audience and editors as viewers as well, of what gets you excited. And I think so much of it as the process of watching a director and editor’s relationship. But when I was watching with Ricardo is just seeing that passion come out and then really focusing on that and making sure that that’s the center of everything you do, when you’re editing at every scene. So being in dialogue with what moves you, I would say is what mentorship means to me.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

And Michèle, how about for you?

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

Wow…

Chris Mutton, CCE:

It’s an open-ended question, but…

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

It’s a hard one. First of all, the two people need to have a good relationship. I think that’s really important. It takes a lot from… You’re giving and taking on both sides, it’s not just a one-way street. You’re not just talking about yourself and saying, “Oh yeah, I did this, I did this.” No. I mean the idea is, Brina came in, what can I do to advance and help her in her career? And in bringing what I have learned and what people had given me, how do I give back?

And I think that that’s really, really important. And you have to be honest. You have to be honest with yourself. You have to be honest with your mentee. There are times when Brina was very frustrated and was having difficulty. And so you share your own fears, you share your own struggles. Because even today, you still have them. I mean, how many times do you get a new film and you go, “Okay, that’s it. They’re going to find out that I can’t do this anymore.” And to be able to listen. To listen to her, to her ideas, what she brings to the table. And not always try and lead and control the situation. I think that that’s really important because they’re there. They have a lot to offer as well. So I think it’s very much a two-way street.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

Yeah. Excellent. Yeah, I like how you touched upon earlier, too, about learning from Brina and that the mentee has a lot to offer the mentor. And that’s maybe a common misconception about mentorship is that it’s a top-down approach and it’s somebody who’s, “I’m going to teach you X, Y, and Z.” But I think one thing that’s come across really obviously, in all the conversations we’ve had here, is that openness and honesty and it has to be a two-way conversation to make it work well. Brina, what does an effective mentorship mean to you?

Brina Romanek:

Well, first of all, I think both those answers are so great that it’s hard to keep coming up with things. Two things stick out for me. One is a safe space. Feeling like you have a safe space to make mistakes and to play. Because, end of the day, one of the most fun things about editing is that you get to play. And so if you have the space to do that, then it makes the whole experience better. And it probably makes your film better.

And the other thing that I would say is that having a mentor who can see what you’re capable of, even when you can’t, and so will sometimes push you to places that you don’t think you can go to is a very lucky thing to come across and I think makes the growth that much better. I know Michèle has certainly pushed me sometimes and I don’t think there’s any more pushing that can happen and then suddenly it’s like, wow. And we go somewhere completely different.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

That’s true.

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

So I wasn’t too mean?

Brina Romanek:

No.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

Amazing. And Ricardo, what does an effective mentorship mean to you?

Ricardo Acosta, CCE:

I think everybody has said something very meaningful. For me, really, it’s a collaboration. Also, I would use one word is empathy and respect. And also knowing that you are working with a very particular part of our being, which is our fragility, our insecurity, our gift as artists. The fact that none of the scenes are absolute, but they’re all part of our humanity. I cannot be the mentor of someone who is competing with me, or I cannot be the collaborator as an editor, as a story editor, or as writer of a director that is competing.

It’s about complimenting. And I always said, “Doesn’t matter who had the idea. If the idea works, that’s what the story needs and we are happy about it.” And that’s one thing that I always share with Jordan, for example, and with other editors and directors that I am mentoring about, it has to be always a pleasurable and in collaboration. It cannot be about a clash of egos or a clash of my idea is better than your idea. There’s no such a thing. At the end of the day, the movie works or it doesn’t. And everybody else ego will banish it out of the screen. And that’s something that I love to be able to understand that the mentee really see in me someone that see this… We have to have the same kind of empathy and excitement about finding each other interesting, I would say.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

Yeah, for sure. Do you guys have any questions for each other?

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

I have a question for Ricardo and Jordan. Jordan, I know you just– was the Surf Girl film the first feature or second feature that you cut? And if so, was Ricardo a mentor on it, a story editor for you? And how did that work?

Jordan Kawai:

Bangla Surf Girls was the second film that Ricardo mentored and story supervised for. The first one was a CBC doc channel piece called Stage: The Culinary Internship. And both instances were actually interesting because Ricardo brought me in for both. And both films were in a spot where they had edited a full rough cut and then they reached a point where they wanted to open it up and to reconstruct and reimagine the film.

So I was brought in for both those pieces and in that situation. The relationship with Ricardo is very much so, again, what I was talking about before, this idea of watching something as a viewer and then having a conversation about it. It was interesting because both those films, you’re able to watch a full rough cut and then have a conversation about what you got excited about and what just wasn’t holding tension. So that relationship, for that film, really was about reacting to something that was already present. And it was interesting because it kind of gave me a bit of a road map to stand on. And for a first feature to cut, it was also a blessing and curse because you were also trying to completely reimagine something, but at the same time, you also were reacting to something that was already done. And yeah. Ricardo, you have anything? What was it like for you in terms of that?

Ricardo Acosta, CCE:

No. For me, Stage was a very interesting [inaudible 00:48:14] because I was approached by the directors and producer to edit the film and I said, “I’m busy, but I have the magic team for you.” Because for me, it was very important to– I knew that Jordan was ready to do a feature length documentary. But I also knew that not everybody was seeing Jordan as being ready, because that also happens. Sometimes you have an editor in waiting that is still a ghost because the producers that he’s working with don’t see him as someone that they want to give the chance.

And one thing that we can do, Michèle, me, and editors who are more established and they have done it, is that we can become that signature behind that opportunity. And I saw it as well, okay. And I remember saying, “Jordan, you have to tell me yes about this because this is something nice for you. And these directors will never hire you on your own because there is this layer of insecurity about who are– what have you done?” But the deal I have made is that you get me if you get him.

And that was an opportunity that for me was super important to do in that case, because I know Jordan will be able to do it. But I also knew that directors and producer will not be able to hire him. So I have to pitch Jordan to the producer, director. And that was a very powerful pitch and a very important pitch. I was also mentoring the director and the producer because for them was also, in some cases, first time experience of feature length business. And that way there were so many classic mistakes that were made on the first incarnation of the film. And what we were trying to do here also was we are not coming in to follow something that’s not working, but we are coming in to reimagine that story with the same footage. And that alone is a very powerful and complicated intervention that when we do it, we have to be able to have the room and the freedom to do that.

And that was a great collaboration because constantly, Jordan and me were talking about, “Okay, first is identifying what are those things that absolutely work from what is there before us and what is not working? What is problematic? What is actually a liability to their story?” And start doing this kind of casting the scenes that are in and the scenes they’re out. And then out of that, being left with the bones that we thought, “Okay, this could be the first element to build that story.” That alone will have been very difficult for a young editor to do, on his own or on her own, without having someone like Michèle or me or many other editors who can say, “Okay, let’s resurrect or reinvent this film together.” And how we are going to talk to the director and the producer about this, which are people who had spent perhaps two years working on the same, no working, failing story.

And they has been rejected by everything film festival. And the people are actually very tired about hearing about their story. But then you are coming and saying, “No, there is always a mañana.” That that’s what we did. And I feel very proud because ultimately, that was a dream for me, to be able to help Jordan to get there with a film that, by the time that we got into the other film, it was different. Because he has so much… He have learned to find his own strength much more than at that time, I think. Right, Jordan?

Jordan Kawai:

Well, the time, yeah. The timing was really interesting for me because as an assistant editor who, as you were saying before, I was getting really comfortable with doing the assist edit role. And a lot of that is some of the IT support. So I do get that. I was having that feeling that I was so hungry to work on something in a full creative capacity, but then it’s a dog chasing its tail. When you called me and said, “Oh, there’s an opportunity,” it’s just all of a sudden just trying to find that confidence. Am I actually ready to do that? And I think just by hearing your confidence in me, that definitely was the push. It’s interesting, when you get that opportunity, and I’m curious for you, Brina, is that something that “Hands down, for sure, a hundred percent I’m going to take,” or do you have that moment of consideration of, “Am I actually ready to take this on and will I deliver?” And I struggle with that. But Ricardo, you definitely helped me find that confidence.

Brina Romanek:

It’s very nice to hear someone else… It’s a kind of up here feeling that way because I think, I don’t know about you, Jordan, but I have had minimal contact with other people in my experience and age group who are assistant editing and moving into editing. Because usually I’m working with a team of a lot of people who are very experienced. Sometimes that second guessing is in the back of my brain. I’m going, “Okay, is this normal? Is this okay? Does everybody feel this way at one point or another?”

So in some ways it’s kind of nice to be confirmed that I’m not alone in that feeling. But to echo or answer your sentiments, both times that Michèle has come to me and said, “Okay, here’s what I’m thinking,” there has been that large inhale and going, “Okay, I think I can do it. I think I’m ready.” And I’m curious to know, in your process of working with Ricardo, and I know that Michèle knows this, that I have many days of feeling overwhelmed or I’m not quite sure if I have the chops. And so I’m curious to know if you have had those moments as well when working on both of your films.

Jordan Kawai:

Yeah, definitely. Imposter syndrome is real. I definitely feel that on all the projects at a certain point. But I also find that, in some ways, it’s because there’s this skill of editing, but there’s also just understanding the world that you’re entering. And I think that’s such a gift about editing is just every project is a whole new realm and world that you’re coming into. All this new research, all this new information, all these new contexts. And I think that I convinced myself that fish-out-of-water feeling is normal for every project. And I’ve started to really just embrace that.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

And who better to learn that from than your mentors, who have that feeling too, I’m sure. And to have that confidence check, the ability to check in with somebody, rather than being on your own and left to just to wonder and have some maybe fear come through your mind. But you guys both have someone very experienced to check in on you, which is fantastic.

Ricardo Acosta, CCE:

I have a question for Michèle and for Brina also about, in this relationship that you have as mentor, mentee and collaborators, Michèle also, how has been the experience of learning? Because sometime, a lot of what I do is also being there for the director as much as for the editor that I am mentoring. And sometime even for the director, the producer, and the editor in different capacities, sometime. But how have you been sharing with Brina that whole idea about how do we deal with this director or this situation or this other? What is your role as a editor? How much active or forceful you are? Or how do you stand as an editor? Because I mean, those things are not written on the wall.

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

No, no. And those are very good questions, Ricardo. And I think, Brina, we’re learning this now with Buffy. We’re working on Buffy Sainte-Marie. It’s a big team. There’s way too many executive producers. There’s way too much pressure that this film is supposed to be fabulous. And so I want to make sure the scenes that Brina’s culling out right now are perfect. Are beyond perfect. Because the team is waiting, they’re waiting, and they’re just too nervous.

And so, I don’t know about you Ricardo, a lot of time, it’s just getting that team to calm down. And to say, “We know what we’re doing, we’ll get it done.” Brina, I don’t know, but is the amount of pressure I’ve been putting on you to make sure that, to keep cutting that scene, to make it that there’s no structural problems, there’s no pacing problems. As you know Ricardo, it’s a matter of trust. Can your team trust you because they’re going in blindly with you. You don’t have all the answers right now. And Brina doesn’t have. We’ll work it out. And I think on the first film, Brina, it was that first act had to be great, right? We’d show them scenes, but once that first act and they were like, ‘Oh, thank God. This is so good.” And they relaxed. You know that feeling.

Sometimes I work with directors and they’re new directors. I worked on one and we had barely 12 weeks to cut a feature. I’ll never do that again. No. It’s ridiculous. And you could do it on your own. I’m not following that kind of schedule. But I never worked with a director before and I said, “Well, we don’t have time to make a mistake and go, I’m going on the wrong path. You don’t have time.”

So I cut a scene, like a sizzle reel. I hate that term, but I cut one anyways, just to make sure we’re on the same page. But the director took over 10 days to look at it. You know, you give a Vimeo and you see, how come he hasn’t looked at it yet? What’s going on? And he actually admitted to me that he was afraid to look at it because he thought, “What if I didn’t like it?” Thank God he liked it because he would’ve been in trouble and I would’ve been in trouble. Because it’s, as you know, Ricardo, it’s a relationship with between the filmmaker and the editor. It’s like you’re married for a while and gaining that trust. And I think, Brina, we do a lot of that, how to gain the trust of the filmmaker. And it’s an important skill to learn.

Ricardo Acosta, CCE:

And it’s very delicate because sometime, at one scene I really feel that I always said we all have to embrace our insecurities, our creative panic, as an asset, not as an obstacle. Because we are human. And nobody has the formula of how to make the movie work. And you probably will agree with me, I cannot work with someone’s expectation because that does not give me any tools to make the movie better or worse. I can only work one step at a time with what feels right in front of us at the editing suite. So this idea that somebody is building a film outside the editing suite based on their own pretension, and then projecting that inside then editing suite, can create a lot of demoralizing around the creative process. And for us, it’s super important to protect that. It’s like, yeah, if you want to go to Sundance, that’s your own dream. Please leave it outside the door. I mean, come on.

But I love the idea of be able to share that with my mentees and say, “Yeah, you have the right to push and to exercise those things outside the creative…” That you create the space. Also, this idea that you created space, it’s not the office of the film, where people go to do production stuff. It’s your sanctuary. You are the boss. Yes. That is important because sometimes people don’t see it that way. And then you become an asset to their own world and it’s like, “No, no, no. This is my kingdom.”

Chris Mutton, CCE:

Yeah. I like that idea of how you have to protect that.

Ricardo Acosta, CCE:

I was one working in a production that was few very brilliant editors. And I came in and when I was the last one who came in and everybody was basically working with the window or with the door open, because the control freak executive producer liked to be going around looking at all and I went, “oh no, that’s not me.” It was like a fish tank. I closed my door and it was such a shock in the work environment, because it was, “My God-

Chris Mutton, CCE:

How dare he?

Ricardo Acosta, CCE:

And he was like, “Hey, he closed his door.” It’s like, “Yeah, I closed my door because this is my territory. You’re welcome to my editing suite. This is not a chorizo factory, it’s my creative space.” But it’s very interesting because I realize, okay, I am in a situation where there is a bully, but I was not hired to deal with that. I was hired to try to work on a story. And it was interesting because then I created a trend. All the editors said, “Okay, let’s cross the door.”

Chris Mutton, CCE:

I’m going to close the… You started it.

Ricardo Acosta, CCE:

And those are things that you have to share. And it’s also this idea of that I’m mentoring someone who said, “No, I’m preparing my demo reel and you know what I think about that.” And I’m going like, “You don’t have a demo reel as an editor.”

Chris Mutton, CCE:

Your films.

Ricardo Acosta, CCE:

Whole conversations about what are the trend that you are getting in that’s disrespecting our craft. And that’s important because when a producer asks you for something like that, you are not obligated to bend to that requirement. And people are still asking for demo reels.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

Yeah. Amazing. And in that case you just send them, “Nope, you want want to hire me, watch my film.”

Ricardo Acosta, CCE:

And one day I said, “So you have not that many films on your back, but you also know how to talk. You are entitled to say, let’s talk about a story. Because that’s what I can offer you.”

Chris Mutton, CCE:

I’m afraid we’re going to have to wrap it up. This could go on forever. You guys are having an amazing conversation and I think everybody could agree that both of your mentor/mentee pairs are really excellent examples. I love all the conversation around the intangible skills that mentors can pass on to their mentees. Because there’s so much more to editing than just what’s on the timeline. So thank you to Jordan, Ricardo, Michèle, and Brina.

Michèle Hozer, CCE:

Thank you, Chris.

Brina Romanek:

Thank you.

Ricardo Acosta, CCE:

Thank you, Chris.

Chris Mutton, CCE:

You bet.

Jordan Kawai:

Thank you.

Sarah Taylor:

Thanks so much for joining us today. And a big thanks goes out to our panelists and moderator. A special thanks goes to the 2022 EditCon planning committee, Alison Dowler and Kim McTaggart, CCE. The main title sound design was created by Jane Tattersall. Additional ADR recording by Andrea Rusch. Original music created by Chad Blain and Soundstripe. This episode was mixed and mastered by Tony Bao. The CCE is proud to support Hire BIPOC. Hire BIPOC is the definitive and ubiquitous industry-wide roster of Canadian BIPOC creatives and crew working in screen-based industries. Check out HireBIPOC.ca to hire your next crew or create a profile and get hired.

Speaker 9:

The CCE is a non-profit organization with the goal of bettering the art and science of picture editing. If you wish to become a CCE member, please visit our website, www.cceditors.ca. Join our great community of Canadian editors for more related info.

Abonnez-vous là où vous écoutez vos balados

Que voulez-vous entendre sur L'art du montage?

Veuillez nous envoyer un courriel en mentionnant les sujets que vous aimeriez que nous abordions, ou les monteurs.euses dont vous aimeriez entendre parler, à :

Crédits

Un grand Merci à

Kim McTaggart, CCE

Alison Dowler

Mac Dale

Hosted and Produced by

Sarah Taylor

Design sonore du générique d'ouverture

Jane Tattersall

ADR Recording by

Andrea Rusch

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Musique originale par

Chad Blain

Sponsor Narration by

Paul Winestock

Commandité par

Adobe

Catégories
L'art du montage

Episode 014: Meet René Roberge

Episode014_Meet Rene Roberge

Episode 14: Meet René Roberge

Cet épisode est commandité par MELS STUDIOS

In this new episode, we meet a highly respected editor in the Canadian documentary world: René Roberge.

CCE_Podcast_RENE ROBERGE_LADM-STUDIO
Photo Credit: Raphaël Pare

In fact, René Roberge was nominated this year for Best Editing in a Feature Documentary at the Canadian Screen Awards for the film JOUVENCELLES. Catherine Legault nous guide à travers son parcours professionnel et son approche très singulière du documentaire.

Bonne écoute!

À écouter ici !

Abonnez-vous là où vous écoutez vos balados

Que voulez-vous entendre sur L'art du montage?

Veuillez nous envoyer un courriel en mentionnant les sujets que vous aimeriez que nous abordions, ou les monteurs.euses dont vous aimeriez entendre parler, à :

Crédits

Un grand Merci à

René Roberge

Catherine Legault

Raphaël Pare

Les Studios MELS

Maud Le Chevallier

Audrey Sylvestre

Animatrice

Catherine Legault

Montage

Pauline Decroix

Design sonore du générique d'ouverture

Jane Tattersall, adapté en version française par Pauline Decroix

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Musique offerte par

Commandité par

Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 074 – l'EditCon 2022: Remanier le scénario

The Editor's Cut: Episode 74: EditCon 2022: Flipping the Script

Episode 074 - EditCon 2022: Flipping the Script

Today’s episode is part 2 of our 4 part series covering EditCon 2022 Brave New World.

Today’s panel is Flipping the Script – The age of streaming has fully arrived. We’ve experienced a boom of topnotch shows, but how do you set yourself apart in such a crowd? Whether it’s bucking the trend of antagonistic conflict to create the arc of TED LASSO; using comedy to punctuate the lives of non-binary characters in SORT OF, exploring familiar characters in new ways with WANDAVISION or reinvigorating period drama with the diverse world of BRIDGERTON, these shows prove that discarding past norms leads to success. Sit with the editors behind these phenomenal series as they discuss the ins and outs of their groundbreaking approaches to storytelling.

This episode is generously sponsored by JAM Post.

JAM Post Logo Sponsor

À écouter ici !

The Editor’s Cut – Episode 074 – EditCon 2022: Flipping the Script

Sarah Taylor:

This episode was generously sponsored by Jam Post.

Omar Majeed:

Some of these words we use in television are so outdated in a weird way you know. It’s like a comedy-drama, but it’s like we think of comedy, our association is mainly the high comedy. We think of drama, you think of high stakes drama, right? Life is so often lived in the middle zones of those extremes. And then, you know, you add something high concept like WandaVision in there, and it feels like, oh, we got to have huge, big action, not scale things down to emotions of grief, right? So similarly for a character like Sabi, they’re queer, they’re marginalized, they’re racialized. These are labels that we tend to think of as having high stakes drama or outrageous comedy. And I think we were trying to kind of find what was more just the authentic truth.

Sarah Taylor:

Hello and welcome to the Editor’s Cut. I’m your host, Sarah Taylor. We would like to point out that the lands on which we have created this podcast, and that many of you may be listening to us from, are part of ancestral territory. It is important for all of us to deeply acknowledge that we are on ancestral territory that has long served as a place where Indigenous Peoples have lived, met, and interacted. We honor, respect and recognize these Nations that have never relinquished their rights or sovereign authority over the lands and waters on which we stand today. We encourage you to reflect on the history of the land, the rich culture, the many contributions and the concerns that impact Indigenous individuals and communities. Land acknowledgements are the start to a deeper action.

Today’s episode is part two of our four part series covering EditCon 2022 Brave New World. Today’s panel is flipping the script. The age of streaming has fully arrived. We’ve experienced a boom of top-notch shows. But how do you set yourself apart in such a crowd? Whether it’s bucking the trend of antagonistic conflict to create an arc of Ted Lasso, using comedy to punctuate the lives of non-binary characters in Sort Of, exploring familiar characters in new ways with WandaVision, or reinvigorating period drama with the diverse world of Bridgerton. These shows prove that discarding past norms leads to success. Sit with the editors behind these phenomenal series as they discuss the ins and outs of their groundbreaking approaches to storytelling.

Speaker 1:

And action. Action today, this is the editor’s cut, CCE podcast, exploring, exploring, exploring the art of picture editing.

Gillian Truster:

Hello everyone, I’m Gillian Truster. I’m your moderator for this panel Flipping the Script, and I am very excited to have the opportunity to chat with editors of some of the most critically acclaimed and popular shows on the planet. I would love to introduce our panelists today in the order in which you appear on my screen. We have Melissa McCoy who’s here to talk about Ted Lasso. We have Omar Majeed and Sam Thompson who are here to talk about Sort Of. We have Jim Flynn who’s going to be discussing Bridgerton. And we have Nona Khodai who’s here to talk about WandaVision. Welcome everyone.

 

Nona Khodai, ACE:

Thanks for having us.

Gillian Truster:

Yay, I’m very excited. So all of you have shows that there’s something very unique about them and we could fill a panel on each of your individual shows. So with our limited time, I’m going to focus my questions on what makes your shows unique and innovative, creative challenges and what you feel resonated with audiences. And then I’m going to leave time for a less structured section where all of you can ask each other questions and share your experiences. So with that, let’s get started. So Nona, let’s start with you on Wanda Vision. So you were nominated for two Emmys for this show. That is very exciting, congratulations.

Nona Khodai, ACE:

Thanks, in the same category, but yes.

Gillian Truster:

That is amazing. That is amazing. So before we dive into it, can you tell us what the premise of the show is for those watching who may not have had a chance to see it yet?

Nona Khodai, ACE:

It’s basically, well it’s an exploration on grief, actually. The show in the short term, basically. The reason the show is kind of unique is that it’s structured in a way that you think it’s about happy sitcoms, and then you reveal, as we reveal episode by episode, little things are a little odd. The character goes from decade to decade in sitcoms, and it’s her way of dealing with her grief over the years. And so instead of showing it in this traditional way of how we see grief, we see it in her love of sitcoms and how those sitcoms have helped her get through the grief as each person in her life has passed, basically.

 So we start in the fifties with an episode that’s similar to Dick Van Dyke, and we go decade by decade until we get into the present day. And then we reveal in a way, in the clip I’ll be showing, how she changes the world from present to the past into the sitcom world that she’s created to protect herself from grief. And then it’s based on the characters, Wanda Maximoff, who has powers being able to mind control people and move things with her mind and Vision, who is, who’s the lover of her life and is a Synthozoid, a robot essentially, but has human emotions. And she’s lost him in the last Avengers movie. He has passed away and this is her dealing with his death basically is the show. That’s the exploration of her grief over his death and all the deaths that she’s had to deal with. So that’s basically what the show is about.

Gillian Truster:

So exactly, your show, it’s the way that it’s told. That’s super, super innovative. So with that, let’s show your clip because I think, well why don’t you set up, the clip?

Nona Khodai, ACE:

Basically goes through her life and it flashes back through what’s happened to her and where she has ended up today in the present, in her present day in the show. This witch, Agatha Harkness, basically is trying to open her up because she has this power within her that she doesn’t know why she has all this power. And so she’s basically Wanda’s walking her through her memories. It’s kind of like a Christmas Carol episode basically. So she’s walking her through all her memories and the clip is she’s found this letter, that vision has gone to this one location and we reveal why in a clip, basically why she’s gone because she basically… Well, I don’t want to give it away, but basically there’s a deed to a house that he’s bought in her name and their name and because it would’ve been this life that they would’ve lived together and yet they don’t get to live it. And so it’s the catalyst to what happens next, which is she creates this world to protect herself.

Gillian Truster:

So let’s roll that clip.

 

[clip plays]

Gillian Truster:

Thank you very much. That’s a great clip.

Nona Khodai, ACE:

Thank you.

Gillian Truster:

And I love how there’s so much information that’s conveyed nonverbally and I think that clip also is great that it gives people who haven’t seen the show a really good sense of actually what the show is. If somebody asked you what genre do you consider WandaVision? I legitimately think you could say all of them. I mean, it has drama, it has comedy, it has mystery, it has action, adventure, superhero. It has sci-fi, it has fantasy. But what do you consider it?

Nona Khodai, ACE:

I mean, it’s whatever, whoever’s watching it considers it. I think it’s such a show for everyone, hopefully. And you can’t put it in a… I mean it’s a limited series, so it’s its own thing. So there is no genre, I guess you would say in it. I think essentially it is like a drama and comedy, a dramedy. We have both elements. It could also be a multi-cam sitcom at times because we have laugh track and whatnot. I don’t know. I can’t… I don’t know what it is.

Gillian Truster:

Right, it’s it. It’s a bit of everything. It’s a bit of everything. So actually speaking of sitcoms, so the first few episodes starts in this sitcom world. Did you watch old sitcoms in order to emulate the style?

Nona Khodai, ACE:

Yeah, I mean we knew from the start of signing on that we would have to emulate older sitcoms. So I was a big fan of I Love Lucy, so I know all of those episodes. So I just went and rewatched a lot of that. I was a big fan of Dick Van Dyke, so I went and started watching some of those. And it’s amazing how crisp that timing is and the pacing and how much they rehearsed, it looked like they rehearsed, to get that because it was all so fast-paced. And they would just stay in those wide shots and they would just banter back and forth. It’s pretty incredible. Bewitched, I watched a lot of Bewitched and Brady Bunch and Family Ties for the ’80s episode, Full House, and then Modern Family and The Office were our ’90s, 2000s episodes. So all of those decades, and I grew up with all those.

Gillian Truster:

So you’re familiar?

Nona Khodai, ACE:

I was familiar. I knew the timing, but it was good to refresh and go back, even Laverne and Shirley and Mary Tyler Moore for the main title sequences. I had to go, because we had to create those main title sequences too. And so it was a good way to look at all of those different sitcoms and what they did and how it evolved from the ’50s to the ’60s to the ’70s, especially style and music. Music was really hard to temp because if you go back and watch, they don’t really have scores right now. We can’t go and buy those scores and put them in. So it was a lot of library music that we found to sprinkle it in for temp until we had the composer come in and write to the show.

Gillian Truster:

So even though you were emulating those sitcoms, did you end up taking any liberties with that in order for them to work for a modern audience?

Nona Khodai, ACE:

Absolutely. I mean I think at some point I had a little bit more pauses and whatnot and I tended to kind of squeeze in places just because we needed it to be paced-up for modern times and even cutting it a little cuttier than say the older sitcoms because they would just stay in those mediums for most of it. And I did do that, but sometimes you do have to just pace it up for time and so people won’t get bored, especially those early sitcoms because no one knew what was happening. And I think we were worried that no one would like the show because you’re like, what is the show? Why would people stick around and watch it? But I’m glad they did.

Gillian Truster:

Well actually, I mean that does bring up a couple of questions I have. When the show starts, the narrative is not immediately clear. So did you end up doing anything in editing to parcel out the information differently than maybe perhaps as scripted?

Nona Khodai, ACE:

I mean, a lot of it was scripted, I’ll say that. But yes, we did the end of 101, that was scripted, but we come out of frame and you see that someone’s watching the show and you’re like, what’s that? And then at the end of 102 and mainly the first two, mostly because we aired those together and they were originally going to air all three, but we needed time on the back end for VFX for the finale. So we needed that extra week to get all those VFX approved. And so instead of having all three air, and the end of two they added a bit of sound and Randall Park has a line at the end that you don’t know it’s Randall Park, but it’s him saying, “Wanda, Wanda, do you hear me?” And we added that at the very end of 102 so that it would entice audiences to come back for the next episode because we just didn’t have anything to come back to this mystery of what’s really going on.

You did a little bit with the Beekeeper coming up and staring at Wanda at the end of 102. You see all that bit. That was all done intentionally, but you just needed something extra there, I think, just to get the audience to come back for the next episode. And I think it worked. And then after the end of 103 with Monica Rambo getting thrown out of the Hex, definitely people came back for episode four, which is where we really get ya, I feel like. Four is the episode where people want to come back and watch and they’re like, okay, I get it. I get the show. But up until that point, I think it’s a bit of a mystery and it was, I think, a lot of audiences probably left because they were like, what is this? What am I watching?

Gillian Truster:

You wanted people to know that, oh not every episode is going to be a sitcom. That just wait, there is something that is going to come. And you just giving them those little tidbits just to let them know, just wait, patience.

Nona Khodai, ACE:

Just wait a second.

Gillian Truster:

Patience people patience and then it will, the mystery will unfold.

Nona Khodai, ACE:

It’ll pay off eventually. Exactly, yeah.

Gillian Truster:

Working on this show, how much did you need to know about the Marvel Universe?

Nona Khodai, ACE:

I mean, I went back and watched all the movies. I think most of what I needed to know is Wanda and Vision’s backstory. I needed to know that, how they met and what happened to her and her brother in Age of Ultron, Avengers Age of Ultron, that he had died. And just knowing her and his backstory, I think, was probably what I needed to know. But I did, I went and watched all of them and it was fun to go back and watch the whole catalog because I don’t think I had actually done that before I started the show. So it was just fun to just learn about the world and all the various different characters. And you just go everywhere. You go to a space, you go… It’s a universe of its own. It’s pretty fun.

Gillian Truster:

Now I’ve heard you say that this show was treated as if you were making a movie, not a TV series. So can you elaborate on what you mean by that?

Nona Khodai, ACE:

Well, the way that the shows are structured at Marvel, we have a director who’s the showrunner essentially. There is a writer, but we never dealt with the writer really. We would get notes through the director from the writer, but essentially the director was our leader and we took the show from production all the way to delivery. And usually on TV shows, you lock your show, you say goodbye, they do all the VFX, and then they deliver after. Like on The Boys I would lock shows and then they would spend another six to eight months working on VFX and then they would deliver the show. And I would never see them until the final mixed playback, which would be six to eight months later. And then I’d be like, whoa, look at all this, all these VFX that I had never seen before.

That’s not the way it works at Marvel. You’re there, you’re working with the VFX team, you’re working with the Sound Department, the Music Department, you’re giving your insight in all of it. You’re giving notes on all of it. You’re changing timing on shots based on VFX to the very end. And a lot of TV shows do that, but for the most part, being on very high genre shows, I haven’t had the privilege of doing that. And I don’t know about the other panelists here, but I had never experienced that in TV before. So it was refreshing to just be able to finish the show properly. And that’s what I mean by it feels like a feature.

Gillian Truster:

Right, it sounds like you’re until the end collaborating with a lot of different departments, right through the-

Nona Khodai, ACE:

Taking it right through to the end. Yeah, I mean we delivered the finale, I think, 15 days before it aired. And that was 15 because we just had no time, so. We were there to the very end. And I know working at Shonda and other places, they’ve done that or I’ve heard that too, that they take it to the very end too sometimes with shows, and I’m sure Jim could speak to that.

Gillian Truster:

That’s great. No, that sounds like a fantastic process, a fantastic way to work.

Nona Khodai, ACE:

It was a pleasure.

Gillian Truster:

So Melissa, let’s get into Ted Lasso.

Melissa McCoy, ACE:

Okay.

Gillian Truster:

So you won an ACE award and earned an Emmy nomination for Ted Lasso. Yes, congratulations, that’s incredible.

Melissa McCoy, ACE:

Thank you , yeah.

Gillian Truster:

So before we get into it, could you please give us the premise of the show for those who may not have a chance to see it?

Melissa McCoy, ACE:

Well, it’s about an American football coach who goes over to England to coach soccer or football over in the UK. And he’s brought over by the team owner who’s acquired the team in a nasty divorce. And the reason she brings him over is not to take the team, basically. And so that’s kind of the setup. It’s very Major League, but from there it basically turns into a workplace comedy that also deals with the human condition and loss. Much like WandaVision, where it’s kind of hard to put in a box because I remember going through season one and getting things and thinking, okay, I’m getting a lot of sad episodes. Him and his wife go through a divorce, and Rebecca’s dealing with a lot of pain and shame. And Roy Kent is dealing with the end of his career and who is he going to be?

It’s all about the human condition really. And it wrapped in a workplace comedy with a little bit of sports mixed in. Yeah. So it’s more of a dramedy in that way. But for me at least, you just fall in love with this cast of characters that revolve around this world. And it’s not all, you know you have your team, you have your soccer players, you have the coaching staff who have their own world. You have the behind the scenes with Rebecca, and then she brings in Keeley who starts out as a… She’s a kind of model-star dating one of the soccer players. And then, or football players, I’ll say football, that’s what we kind of try to stay with the right vernacular, even though Americanized.

Anyways, it’s complicated. I feel like I’ll say soccer and I’m pissing off some people over here and I’ll say football and people are like, wait, what are you talking anyways, football. She was dating one of the football players and that turned into a love triangle. And so there’s just a lot of world blendings of this ragtag team of characters that are all going through some pretty big life stuff. But you still find the comedy in those moments.

Gillian Truster:

No, it is actually said that I was going to ask you about, because for awards you have to choose the category, but it’s not, and so it’s won all these awards in the comedy category, but it’s really, really not a straightforward comedy. So when you signed onto the show, did you have an idea of, oh, I’m on a comedy and this is how I’m going to cut it. Did your perception of it change over time when you got the footage?

Melissa McCoy, ACE:

Yes. Yeah, so I signed on because I was working with Bill Lawrence, who’s the executive producer. So I just basically saw him developing with Jason, didn’t know the script or anything. I didn’t really even know the skit. It’s based on a skit, like an NBC promotional thing for when they brought football to America. The Olympics were coming up and it was done back in the day and it was just like a snappy, ridiculous comedy. But I knew that he was developing the script and I just basically was like, I want in on that because I love Jason from SNL. I’m a big SNL fan, and I just.

Melissa McCoy, ACE:

I love Jason from SNL. I’m a big SNL fan, and I just thought he was charming and a wonderful performer. I don’t know, just something in me, script unseen, I didn’t know anything about it. I was like, please, please, please, can I be on that? They let me do it. I got to do the pilot. I had signed on before even reading the pilot. And then when I got sent the pilot, I was reading it and I was like, okay, comedy, comedy, comedy. Then you get to the end and in the script, I remember they were like, this song plays, please play this song as you read this scene. I was like, okay. I remember I was in a coffee shop and I was like, okay, I brought up the song and I’m listening to it and reading the scene and I’m like, this feels really heavy.

It’s this conversation with his wife and you don’t hear the other side of it where you basically, oh, he’s come here for a different reason than Rebecca bringing him over. He’s got a reason to want to get away as well, which I really loved. Then when the footage started coming in, I was kind of by myself. Everybody was in London, I was in LA and we never had a tone meeting about it or anything like that. When it was coming in, I was like, “I am not cutting this 30 Rock.” It just didn’t feel like that. The performances didn’t feel like that. It felt like I want to land this moment. I definitely took my time in some places to build the relationships. Then of course did some snappy stuff. We like some more stylized stuff. There was a press conference which was kind of a nod to the original skit, so that was a little more frenetic and fast paced.

But as we were trying to figure out what the show was when we started cutting it, first Apple was like, “This needs to be 28 minutes.” and we were at 36 minutes or something. I think we got it down to 30 minutes in and around there, but everyone was like, it’s a comedy, it’s got to be fast. it just didn’t feel right. Talking to Jason, we had cut a scene that he was like, looking back now, he was like, nobody ever said, I wish these were shorter. He was like, I wish we would’ve kept that scene in it. So it was just little things. We made some concessions early on that we didn’t do in season two. As our times kind of grew, we didn’t ever get close to 30. I think our longest episode in season one was 34 minutes, and that was our shortest episode in season two.

It’s interesting to see how the world has evolved and Jason really leaning into his beliefs in the show and what he wants to say and what he wants the characters to be feeling and going through and giving them the space to do that has been a really enjoyable process to find it along the way and be like, this is what it is. And I think we all just fell in love with the people and wanted to spend some time with them and gave ourselves, luckily we’re on a platform that you don’t have to fill to the tee of a running time. 

Gillian Truster:

So then in terms of like you said originally it sounds like Apple was like, oh, this is a comedy. It’s a sitcom, it’s supposed to be this many minutes. You have to get it to be shorter. Then is it with season two that they allowed more leeway because they saw how successful it was? Is it that they really had to wait to see what the audience reaction was before they were like, “Oh, right, it is this, we could let it breathe.”

Melissa McCoy, ACE:

Yeah, I think they found that over season one, it was just how much pilot, because we were a straight to series pickup, so it was like they didn’t work out anything with the pilot. They just got that and we were already moving along. I was working on episode three because I did every other episode, and so it was just like we were still going and finding it. Luckily season one, everything was open until the very end. We didn’t have to lock anything, so we didn’t have air dates. It was lovely. We were finding things later and being like, let’s go back and plant, oh, I see why the writers did this. We were letting moments land early that had we had to lock and move on and not have found what it was later. I think over the course of season one, Apple was like, “Oh, okay.”

It was only in that opening, what is this? It’s all that, trying to find the music and the tone. It was really tough. I was burning through all my soundtracks, just trying to find the right musical tone for this, because it’s just like, is it a comedy? But we have these kind of interpersonal moments that we’re trying to let land, and it feels more real in that moment and less slap sticky, which if you watch the original skits, it was all just like joke, joke, joke, joke and kind of outlandish. Even though there’s some of that, Ted Lasso you could send him off and he could be a complete caricature, but Jason grounds it in so much reality that that’s one of the things I love is he’s being silly, but then he gives a little wink to the audience of there’s something deeper of reason why I’m deflecting with the joke or trying to make you comfortable with the joke or open you up with this joke, especially with him and Rebecca and how he just keeps working at her and then they kind of reach a deeper relationship.

Well, everybody in that way, Keeley and Rebecca and Roy and Keeley and Jamie and Roy, they all kind of have this friction that then breaks down into a real relationship, which has been really enjoyable to kind of, I guess create in the editing room.

Gillian Truster:

You also brought a clip with you. Do you want to set that clip up?

Melissa McCoy, ACE:

Sure. This is from season two, episode 205 called Rainbow. It’s basically, it’s basically the rom communism episode where it’s a romantic comedy, but it’s not about love interest, it’s about the love of football and Roy Kent’s return to the pitch. It’s basically the romantic comedy of Roy and football and actually between him and Jason really, or Ted. Yes, and he’s retired after season one and he’s become a sports announcer and he thinks this is where he needs to be. He needs to be away from the pitch but our team captain Isaac is having a bad start of the season and Ted wants a big dog Roy to come in and kind of set him straight and get him on the right path to get out of his head. So Ted has kind of asked Roy to do this, and he has helped him.

One night he comes and he takes Isaac to his hometown football field and plays a scrappy pickup game with some of the guys there that are really, really good pickup game. He gets his love of the game back and Roy has kind of done that for him. Now it’s game day. Roy is on the show for the, it’s soccer Saturday I think it’s called. Yeah, starts there.

Gillian Truster:

Let’s roll the clip.

[clip plays]

Gillian Truster:

Thank you very much. That’s a great clip. Why did you select this clip?

Melissa McCoy, ACE:

For me, it was, when I think about Ted Lasso, it’s like, again, it’s not really about the football, it’s about what’s going on in these people’s lives. And that was such a turning point for him. There was a bunch of different ways you could cut that, but I chose to stay on him for longer and not cut around to all the things that were happening because he’s going through this decision moment. That’s basically what Ted Lasso is about, is these people going through these really real things and we have to cut it in a way that you are on that journey with him. When it starts out, it’s ratatat back and forth with the commentators. Then as you’re going and he’s seeing what’s happening, his change that he imparted onto Isaac and the team, when you come back out, you just stay with him and you see it on his face and you hear the announcers having the conversation in the background, but it’s not about that for him anymore.

He’s making his decision to not do this anymore. I remember I cut the scene basically how it is, and then when the director came in, she was like, “I think maybe we need to see the guys that they’re saying it’s lovely weather back there and all that stuff.” I was like, “Sure, I could cut it that way, but I did it this way because who cares about that at this point? Roy doesn’t care about that. Why would we go there?” She was like, “Yeah, I get that, I get that, but let’s see it that way.” I cut a version of it and then she was like, “Oh no, you’re right. Go back to how that was.” It was important to go through that process because that’s traditionally how you do it. Somebody’s talking, go to them. You should see it that way, sort of thing. Ultimately it was about his character and what he is going through.

Gillian Truster:

Thank you Melissa. Omar and Sam let’s get into it, because I think that your show does share some of the same challenges that Melissa experienced in terms of tone and finding the right tone and music for your show. You brought a trailer with you. Why don’t we roll that clip to set that up for the audience.

 

[clip plays]

Gillian Truster:

Thank you for showing that. That’s a great trailer. Sort Of has been on a lot of top 10 lists for 2021. It premiered at Tiff. It’s gotten a lot of acclaim. It’s a show that similarly to your main character or a lot of the characters actually don’t fit into any typical boxes. It doesn’t fit into boxes. Was it difficult for you to find the tone of this show? How did you find the tone of this show? What do you think the tone of this show is?

Omar Majeed:

We had to really discover the tone of the show and it was a process. I think it’s very fitting that actually Sam and I are both here on the panel. Because even though we had our individual episodes, especially in the beginning, there was a lot of back and forth on episodes that I was working on and that Sam was working on. We would share a lot and just sort of trade off ideas with Fab and Bilal who were the creators of the show to really define what wasn’t even, I think clear to all of us at first in terms of we kind of knew what the show wasn’t more than maybe what the show was, and we had to figure out a lot of things along the way. The character of Sabi is not a very usual character and that’s obviously something to be celebrated.

I think that presented unique challenges tonally. Melissa, like what you were saying, and I’m sure for you as well similar feelings about in this genre is supposed to be funny. I tend to feel like some of these words we use in television are so outdated in a weird way. It’s like it’s a comedy drama, but it’s like we think of comedy, our association is mainly the high comedy, the broad comedy. We think of drama, you think of high stakes drama and life is so often lived in the middle zones of those extremes. Then you play something high concept like WandaVision in there and it feels like, oh, we got to have huge big action, not scale things down to emotions of grief. Similarly for a character like Sabi, they’re queer, they’re marginalized, they’re racialized. These are labels that we tend to think of as having high stakes drama or outrageous comedy. I think we were trying to find what was more just the authentic truth of the character and that situation and also the characters around Sabi because they mattered just as much as Sabi did. What are your thoughts there, Sam?

Sam Thomson:

No, absolutely. I mean I totally agree with that. I think from the get go, it was really important from for Bilal and Fab to have this be a show that was about a non-binary or trans character that wasn’t about their body or about some of the other frequent sort of storylines that end up popping up about these types of characters on television and have it just be just more universal and about their humanity. There’s a line in the show that I think we come back through often, which is we’re all in transition and we’re all sort of constantly experience transition in our life and not every transition is the same or is it seen the same way in society. I think that was the core of the show is that we’re all in transition. I think for Sabi, that character, the show is about identity and just defining who you are and feeling comfortable in who you are.

It’s a journey that I think everybody can relate to. Then in terms of the process around that, I’ll echo, what Omar is saying about, repeating what Melissa was saying, I think it was hard to define how funny the show is going to be or how broad it’s going to be. I mean a lot of it was already on the page, but I think that was a huge part of the editing process was testing different directions and then seeing where we could come back to. Sometimes it feels like sometimes it feels like a little bit of a circle and sometimes you’re discovering new things along the way. I think just the fact that we could be experimental and that we had kind of the support to do that and the time to do that, but also be really collaborative like Omar was saying, just to lean on each other for new ideas. I think that was the biggest, I don’t know, the biggest takeaway I guess from the process in general.

Gillian Truster:

Yeah, I really want to get into the collaborative process on your show because I feel like, so you could say this show is about a queer, trans-feminine, non-binary, Pakistani Canadian Muslim, but it’s really not reducible to those descriptors. I think your show has really gone out of its way, just as you said, to do that. I had seen an interview between Bilal Baig and who plays Sabi and Amanda Cordner, who plays their best friend 7ven. Bilal said something like, they’re straddling all these identities, but it’s not the identity stuff that keeps them up at night. It’s like, are the kids okay? Am I letting my best friend down? Am I letting my mother down? Is the bar going to close? It’s just all this human stuff. It’s just about how people navigate the world. The show really is, it’s really trying, I mean there’s so many different people in the show and it’s really trying to find the authenticity. Everybody has depth down to the most minor characters. What was the collaboration process on your show to achieve that?

Sam Thomson:

Wow. I mean I think initially, Omar and I both knew Fab through different sort of origins. I think for us to get to know each other, a lot of it was maybe about sharing musical ideas or film ideas and things like that early on just to talk about tone because it’s like Omar brings his lived experience to the editing process and I have my own experience. And it’s like, I think again, to go back to the collaborative nature was just us having the freedom to be open-minded, to ask questions of each other and not assume that we know the answers and be comfortable with that. It was such a strange experience I think in so many ways.

I mean know, we don’t really want to get into the technical stuff too much, but we’re all sort of remote on this. It was sort of during the height of Covid and we’re just sort of trying to feel out what the show is and that’s a process and feel out each other. We were cutting while they were shooting and it was just a lot happening sort of all at once. We can speak to other sort of specifics like music and a few other things were very important in terms of that part of the process. I don’t know Omar if you wanted to say anything else just about the initial collaboration.

Omar Majeed:

I think that’s sort of the thing I would say the show’s, I really feel the show’s success owes a lot to the spirit of collaboration because I think this is a bit of a double-edged sword for me being somebody who kind of occasionally benefits from these diversity kind of initiatives. But the show did have real diversity in its, it worked weaved into its actual collaboration. The writer’s room was diverse. They were well represented in the edit suite in the sense that both Fab and Bilal were very actively involved in the edit. Then at the same time.

Omar Majeed:

Actively involved in the edit, and then at the same time, Sam and I are collaborating back and forth. And then there was other editors on the show. There’s Craig, who I didn’t get a chance to work with directly, but he as well, and we’re all sharing ideas and bringing our own experiences into things and discussing stuff. Even just to be able to raise a point, if I thought maybe there was something let’s say from a Pakistani angle that maybe let’s say rubbed me the wrong way, well, I wasn’t the only person speaking to that point. Bilal, they would put their opinion in. The writers had obviously, they had enough sort of lived experience there to speak to those points as well. The cast… It was all reflected in such a way that no one had to be the one person speaking to one specific experience, whether it was racialized, gender-fluid perspectives or even just the specifics of how you put a show together.

I mean, all of us had varying levels of experience coming into it, but I think there was a sense of like, okay, we’re trying to go for something tonally… I mean, I’ve heard the show described in some reviews as having a certain sort of gentleness, and we didn’t think of it that way, but it sort of hits as like, yeah, that sort of makes sense. We were I think consciously not trying to go for… Even though one of the characters in the show is in a coma in the hospital, it’s not like, “Oh my god,” or it’s not like laugh out loud pratfalls kind of comedy. I mean, we did have those experimentations here and there, mostly towards trying to make it more comedic, but I think it was always clear that, no, it sort of occupied a sort of middle zone here where the comedy isn’t like I-got-you-in-stitches, MacGruber kind of style comedy.

I’m speaking to my own sense of humor here. It’s more of the comedy grounded in the characters and the absurdity of certain situations. And I think we had to figure that out through a lot of real discussion where no one, I think, had to feel the burden of having to speak for one specific thing. It was real, genuine discussion on an artistic level, not just on the level of identity. So inside the show and outside the show, we touched on those issues, but it wasn’t those kinds of discussions, if that makes sense.

Gillian Truster:

Mm-hmm, fantastic, thank you. No, because I read an interview or an article about Bilal, and they were talking about the same thing that you’re mentioning, which is that it would have been very stressful for them to be the only non-binary person on the show, but what you had is real diversity, where you’re not relying on a single person to speak for an entire group of people, where there’s a spectrum within every group. There’s diversity within groups. And so I think part of the reason why you achieve such authenticity in the depth of your characters is, it sounds like, because of this collaborative process. That collaborative process is really the heart of your show.

Omar Majeed:

Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. I mean, even just one example comes to mind where I think one time, and I don’t know, I think in the end this didn’t even happen in the show, but just as an example of the kinds of things we would have, I was just talking with Fab about how to structure a scene, and then I was thinking about the music that’d be playing in the background in the scene between Sabi and their mother, and they’re playing music that their mother would enjoy. So I was trying to think, okay, what’s a Pakistani kind of piece that would work? And so I put a couple things in there, and Fabri liked it, but then I went and had a discussion with Bilal about it too, and then we got into this whole thread about what would Raffo have liked? How would she have grown up? And you know what I mean?

So it was an interesting… It’s one of those type of sidebar conversations you have that are very deep, that you go, okay, maybe it doesn’t even come into the final edit, but it was informative because we were sharing our own references. But it was like Bilal and I were sort of frequently trying to figure out what would be a good… And this was just for temp purposes, but we were trying to figure out what is the right tone. So tone was everything, I think, for us and trying to figure that out. And in terms of pacing, in terms of how to work with music, how to work with each other, and even how to fight back against certain boxes that maybe we were feeling pressured to conform to kind of echo some of what Melissa was talking about.

Gillian Truster:

Thank you. Thank you. So speaking of smaller moments and a warm, gentle show, so Bridgerton is not. So Jim, let’s get into Bridgerton a bit. So this series reached number one in 76 countries on Netflix, and it became the most watched series on Netflix ever at the time of its premier. So it is a monster hit, just a monster hit.

Jim Flynn, ACE:

A lot of people saw it, and it’s great.

Gillian Truster:

That must feel quite good, to have worked on something that just blows up like that. So a question I have before we get into sort of creative challenges is this. So Bridgeton is a Shondaland production. Shonda Rhimes is known for being a hitmaker. I mean, she really knows how to read the tea leaves. When you’re working on a Shondaland production, is working with Shonda Rhimes different than working with other producers? When you go into the show, does she say to everybody, “Okay, everyone, we are making a hit show, and this is what we need to do?” Or is she just like any other producer just trying to make the best show they can?

Jim Flynn, ACE:

Well, I mean I think all producers are different, but Shonda is different still. I’d never worked with Shonda before, but if she said at any point, “We’re going to go and make a hit, and here we go,” it wasn’t in my presence. But she does know how to do that, and her instincts are so attuned to how to construct a series for television better than anyone I’ve ever worked with by a lot. And she doesn’t even seem to spend any time sort of contemplating any ideas. She’s so direct, she’s so frank. She seems to know exactly what she wants all the time, and she makes sure that she gets it.

It’s a treat working with her. She’s a force of nature. She’s a little intimidating, and she’s very, very brief when she speaks to you or when she sends you notes, which at first blush you’re kind of like, whoa, she didn’t really like what I sent. But then over time you realize actually this is a great way to deal with her notes. She just tells you “This sucks. Take it out. Don’t use that. I don’t know why you used this take. We should do this.” And it’s really refreshing. It’s not couched in any sort of pleasantries. She doesn’t have the time.

Gillian Truster:

Right, she just gets right to the point, right to the heart of the matter.

Jim Flynn, ACE:

For sure.

Gillian Truster:

I actually forgot to ask, for those who haven’t had a chance to see the show, what is Bridgerton about?

Jim Flynn, ACE:

Bridgerton is a Regency-era period piece, but it’s kind of put through a bit of a Shondaland prism, I guess. It’s very modern. The cast is much more diverse than a Merchant Ivory type film. The moments and the beats feel very modern, and it’s really trying to appeal and presumably has appealed to a much younger audience than normally you would get with a period piece romance.

Gillian Truster:

So you also brought a clip with you. I think that clip does give a good idea of what the show is about. Do you want to set that clip up for us?

Jim Flynn, ACE:

No, go ahead and watch it. I think it speaks for itself, and then I can talk to about it when we wrap.

Gillian Truster:

Perfect. Let’s roll the clip.

[clip plays]

Gillian Truster:

Tell us about it.

Jim Flynn, ACE:

Well, I know I was originally going to bring something from the pilot, a much bigger event, but when I sort of went through the show again, thinking about this panel, I thought, well, this would also be a nice one to do, because I think what that moment does in the series, it happens in the third episode, and the premise of the show is basically the… The show is about this Bridgerton family, and Daphne Bridgeton, who is the oldest daughter, is being sort of shopped out to find her husband and seek her fortune and the sort of complexity that goes with that. And so her and this Duke Simon, who sort of become these friends, they come up with the dumbest ruse of all time, which is they’ll pretend that they’re going together so that they can get other people to be more interested in them.

So to that point in the series, they had sort of put on a show that, yes, we’re together, we’re walking through the park, we’re dancing at this ball, we’re doing all these things, and then suddenly in this episode, the two find themselves by themselves, and they realize that there is a real energy between the two of them. There’s a real chemistry. And I think the scene itself is just very well crafted and not just from my perspective. Tom Verica, who directed it, did a fantastic job with his episodes. I’m sure some of you know Tom.

But just the costuming, she’s in white, he’s in black, the way they staged it, where they were facing away from each other, then she turns around, you can see the whole scene, the distance between them getting smaller and smaller in the frames. And then I went to these closeups one after the other as she’s describing this painting and he is realizing that this person is special to him, and then the hands start to come together, and I think it’s sexy, and I think it’s really cool, and I think it represented a big change in their relationship, and that became what their relationship was from that point going forward, this sort of just barely reaching out, I’m doing this very slowly, I’m doing this very gently, and I just thought it was very, very well executed.

Gillian Truster:

It’s definitely a very memorable moment in the series. It’s like one of the iconic moments in the series, absolutely.

Jim Flynn, ACE:

I’m glad, because it’s such a small little moment. There’s so many big moments in the show, and that moment, that the fans reacted the way that they did to that moment, and that I’m so proud of it I brought it to a panel, I’m really happy that it had that big an impact, because I remember working on that scene and just being over the moon about how cool it was.

Gillian Truster:

Mm-hmm, amazing. So Bridgerton is a very modern take on a period piece. There’s been discussion… I’ve read about the multiracial casting, and also, like you said, typically you would think of a period piece as very conservative. This is not. I would not feel comfortable watching this series with my parents, I can tell you that.

Jim Flynn, ACE:

It’s funny. Actually, I’m working on it in my house, and this was at the beginning of the pandemic. This was when? This was April, maybe, and I’m working on Episode Six, which… Episode Six has a little sex in it, and I’m working in my living room. My children are all at home. I have a 16-year-old daughter and a 13-year-old son, and they’re working in their rooms on their schoolwork. And my wife’s a school teacher. She’s in the kitchen, and she’s working on her work, and I’m just working on the sex scene like I would normally work on a sex scene, and my wife came in the room, and she’s like, “What are you doing?” And I’m like, “I’m doing my job.” But I realized I had to put headphones on to work on Episode Six at home with my family.

Gillian Truster:

Oh yeah, the joys of working from home. That is hilarious. So what do you have to consider when you’re modernizing a period piece in terms of the picture edit?

Jim Flynn, ACE:

It’s interesting. There were moments that we played and it was edited to be much more sort of period piece-y when the scenes would kind of call for that, but when we were kind of bumping up against the edges of a more modern sensibility, more the Daphne stuff, Daphne’s older sister, the smoker, stuff like that, we would play that, and it was cut much more in a modern fashion. And I think the contrast of the two cutting styles we benefited from because you could be watching it in one perspective and then suddenly it feels like you’re watching a bit of a different show, which I embraced and did as often as I could.

Gillian Truster:

So I understand you cut the pilot, and I understand that that was the last episode delivered to Netflix. So what was the reason for that decision to deliver the-?

Jim Flynn, ACE:

Well, Julie Anne Robinson directed the pilot. She’s fantastic. The pilot, it’s almost like a theme of this panel. We had to figure out exactly what is the tone of the show. And I think everyone pretty much across the board here has basically kind of come around to the same thing, which is we’ll understand the tone when we understand who these people are. And when we figured out who Daphne and Simon really were, this being the first season… The second season, which I’m not involved in, I guess is subsequent Bridgerton members. But when we figured out who these people were, and not just Daphne and Simon, also Daphne’s mom and Lady Danbury and Anthony and all of the other characters, then we were kind of like, okay, that’s what this show needs to be. And the pilot is setting the table for all of that.

And it’s a huge cast, huge locations, huge events, big balls, that a tone shift of a few degrees has ripple effects from the start to the tail pop. So we spent a lot of time refining that, and we went in a few different directions. An early pass of mine, it was very broad. We had Lady Danbury could be very broad, over the top. It was funny, but we couldn’t fit that in with the rest of the events. So it just took a long time to figure out who are all these people, what are their relationships with all of the other people, and how do they fit in this space?

Gillian Truster:

So you wanted to see the entire series first so that you could figure out exactly how to set it up properly at the outset?

Jim Flynn, ACE:

Yeah, because each of the episodes is really kind of a different story with a lot of other threads from a lot of other different characters and a lot of other different people, so there was a lot of going back and fitting things back into where they need to be because, “Well, we need to set this up for Episode Six, and Episode Four we’re going to need to know who this Penelope character is because when this happens we need to…” You know what I mean? So we spend a lot of time refining Episode One to it. And it was fun. I don’t mind. I was the first guy off and the last guy to walk off at the end. I was there the whole time, which was great, got to see all the other episodes develop and go through and make One what we wanted One to be.

Gillian Truster:

Fantastic. So I’d like to know from all of you, what is it you think resonated with audiences? So, Nona, let’s start with you. What is it about WandaVision that you really think moved people?

Nona Khodai, ACE:

I think timing was essential for WandaVision. It came out at the height of the pandemic, January, 2021. Everyone was home. There was nothing new on television, I think, at that point, and we were airing on Fridays. So every Friday people would come around, and it felt like those old sitcoms that we would watch when I was growing up, like TGIF with Family Matters and Full House. I mean, I grew up with that. I don’t know if you have that. I didn’t know if you had that in Canada or not, but in America we had the Friday every night we would watch with my family. And so I think it had that same kind of quality, the feeling, and so everyone would watch it on Friday nights with their families.

And I think because we were all going through this grief of the pandemic, it also resonated in that way. She was going through grief. We were all also grieving or what we had just gone through and still are still going through, and I think it just… Timing. It’s because of the timing. It’s a great show, but I think the timing really helped too.

Jim Flynn, ACE:

Yeah, the show felt like comfort food in the beginning.

Nona Khodai, ACE:

Yeah.

Jim Flynn, ACE:

It was like, “This feels really comfortable, and I’m really, really happy here.” And then it just gets off the rails. But it’s great. I love the show.

Nona Khodai, ACE:

Aw, thanks. Love yours too.

Gillian Truster:

Well, Jim, what do you think it is about your show?

Jim Flynn, ACE:

I mean, I have to agree with Nona a little bit because we released on Christmas Day on the first Christmas of the pandemic, and people were looking for escapism, I think. And I think we delivered that in spades, and I think it’s beautiful, and I think that the acting is fantastic, and the editing is top notch.

Nona Khodai, ACE:

It’s beautiful.

Jim Flynn, ACE:

It’s beautiful to watch, yeah.

Nona Khodai, ACE:

Personally, I’ll say, I loved it. I love that series so much, and it was a huge escape. And I love period pieces, so to have even modern day music play classically, I thought that was so cool and so different, and it was just a delight to watch.

Jim Flynn, ACE:

Thank you.

Gillian Truster:

Melissa, what do you think it is about Ted Lasso?

Melissa McCoy, ACE:

Same, really. We released in the pandemic, and I think all of us are touching on, and Jason kind of mentioned this too. Jason, we didn’t know we were going to go into a pandemic, but he was just like, “I feel like people don’t want cynicism anymore.” That was something he really was into. If we had a joke in there, he was like, “I feel that’s like a little bit too mean for Ted.” And he would mention, “I want the locker room, that’s our Cheers set.” You know what I mean? He’s really into Cheers because his uncle is Norm from Cheers, little fact, but so he has a lot of Cheers references.

Jim Flynn, ACE:

No kidding? I didn’t know that.

Melissa McCoy, ACE:

Yeah, yeah. Yeah.

Omar Majeed:

When I head that, I was like, “Oh my god.”

Nona Khodai, ACE:

Yeah.

Omar Majeed:

I was dazzled when I heard that. I was like, oh my God.

Melissa McCoy, ACE:

Yeah, There’s a lot of cheers reference…

Jim Flynn, ACE:

[inaudible 01:09:05] years old when I heard that.

Melissa McCoy, ACE:

Yeah. A lot of cheers references in Ted.

Nona Khodai, ACE:

Wait.

Melissa McCoy, ACE:

But yeah, and then we… He was saying that as we were working on it, so it was just looking back, I’m like, God, he was so… He had such a vision. He was like, I just don’t, people don’t want cynicism anymore. He’s like, I get that kind of comedy, but I don’t want to do that. And so when we dropped, We weren’t some big… I think people came to it and were like, this show is Major League. This show is going to just be goofy American. And then word spread of people that stuck with it and was like, oh no, they go deeper. And all of us have kind of touched on the human condition of our shows. And I think at that time, people, it was a scary time and a traumatic time.

But there’s still comedy, there’s still life happening. And like Omar said, it’s, there’s a lot of, even though you are going through something that’s not traditionally funny, there’s a lot of comedy in that, sometimes unintentional comedy. You still find time to laugh even in the hardest times I think sometimes. And so our show touched on that. These people are divorced and hurt and shame and not feeling good enough or father issues. We touched on a lot of that in season two. It’s just all these things that are universal to a lot of people. And when people were seeking connection, I think we’re all home and by ourselves. You want to be with some friends and people that make you feel good. And I think that’s what Ted Lasso did for people and then…

Jim Flynn, ACE:

It’s also, it’s so full of optimism and gratitude. It’s just a really, it’s a great show.

Melissa McCoy, ACE:

Yeah.

Nona Khodai, ACE:

Yeah. Believe, it’s so silly, but I heard a lot of sports teams use that motto now. And it’s so great to see. It’s so positive, which we all need.

Gillian Truster:

It’s a celebration of kindness, really. It is. And so Omar and Sam, what are your thoughts on?

 

Sam Thomson:

Well, I think for me, well first of all, our release was actually a little bit different in the sense that it was almost like a show that I think people were discovering. We had a more of a media push maybe here locally, but we initially released on streaming, on CBC Gem, and then it went to CBC broadcast, and then about a month later was when it premiered on HBO Max. So it’s been this slow rollout. But I think Melissa really brings up a point that I hadn’t really thought about in a while, but it really connects with our show, which is, I think The Fab, I think had said this at our TIFF screening about the comedy and being, comedy that isn’t really mean towards anyone else. It’s not cynical. It’s not tearing down other people, to have that humor shine.

And I think that was something that was refreshing and fun about working on this show is that it lacked that cynicism that I think you all have said we needed, especially during the pandemic. We needed that positivity or escapism or whatever. But yeah, I think in general the comedy was something maybe I was a little surprised that connected with the audiences because as an editor you watch it so much and the jokes start to… You’re fine-tuning things within frames and trying to figure out, is this funny or not? I can’t tell anymore. But even being at that first TIFF screening and hearing an audience laughing and howling with laughter and all these little moments that you’d forgotten about, it was really refreshing. And I think just the comedy and also having these characters that I feel like traditionally you feel like people traditionally, maybe a lot of people would feel like they can’t relate to them in a direct way because of who they are or whatever.

I think that’s been a really fun, surprising things as I talk to people, is how people can really relate to these characters, even if they have a completely different lived experience. They can relate to just the human condition, I guess, or this idea of transition or whatever. It’s a relatable show I guess, which was a bit surprising for me but… What about you Omar?

Omar Majeed:

Yeah, I echo all of that. But I would say as well, it really strikes me being on this panel having… I had binge-watched all of these shows during the pandemic. Big panel of all of every them. But what’s remarkable to me thinking about them as a group as well, is that they hit a comfort zone like Ted Lasso and the sitcom’s dynamics. And Bridgerton with its period peace elements and Wanda Vision and the Marvel universe thing. But they’re also really smart evolutions on that they’re variations, and I think is similar in the sense that we’ve had shows that have tackled representation head on in terms of Queer As Folk or Master Of None or shows like this that really kind of what are trying to set a certain record straight or adjust the bar. And I think Sort Of is coming into a new space in that way where it’s not simply about representation. It’s about, okay, now let’s just put this… That’s the situation the character finds themselves into, but we’re going to rely on certain dynamics.

So there’s a comforting aspect that all of the shows that we’ve worked on and it’s enough that kind of is, that brings it in. But it’s not just a kind of throwback or nostalgic exercise. I think that’s really amazing. It’s an evolution, a turn of the dial. So I think that was also what audiences tended to gravitate towards.

Gillian Truster:

So I could ask a million questions, but I want to leave all of you time to ask each other questions. So let’s open it up, let’s open it up and let’s see what happens. I’m excited to see what this discussion is.

 

Nona Khodai, ACE:

I actually have a couple questions for Omar and Sam. So I love the fact, I love the show. I watched all episodes. I wish that it was a little longer, to be quite honest because I really wanted to watch them all. I was wondering, I like that the whole Pakistani, non-binary, Muslim element to it. I grew up Muslim, so having that as a show is really great. And to see that and did you guys have a lot of conversations about how to incorporate it? And I love how it’s not forced down your throat. There’s no talk about it really. And was there more of that that you took out or was it just the way it was written and that’s just the way it was? But I was wondering how you approached that in the show.

Omar Majeed:

Yeah, I think from my perspective, it seemed like, obviously being someone who’s… I’m also Pakistani background, grew up Muslim. I tended to ask a lot of questions and bring up those kinds of discussion points. And like I said, because everyone was in sort of involved with everyone else’s edits, we comment and watch and discuss and figure things out. It wasn’t so segmented. There was a lot of discussion that would go into, does this make sense? But I think that was, like I said, it was there all the way from the beginning through the end. So I know those discussions had been ongoing. So a lot of it was as it wasn’t in the script and there wasn’t a lot of room to play around with, I felt for the most part. It was mostly, again, these tonal sort of things.

But I know, I think early on, one of the things I came to understand about it was, Sabi as a character has these elements in them, but not, any of those things defines them. So you only bring up these things as it applies to the story. So we’re going to get into being Muslim or being Pakistani or how their gender fluidity or queerness unless it made sense to the specific scene. And in some senses it’s similar to Wanda vision in a way where it’s like you’ve just dropped into a reality. You have to figure some stuff out for yourself. And personally I like not having to explain because then you feel like you’re…

Nona Khodai, ACE:

Preaching.

Omar Majeed:

Yeah. You’re kind of like, yeah, you’re putting it through a, quote unquote, like a white lens so to speak, where you’re like, okay, this is what we are. But here it’s just like, no, this is the circumstances. So you never really know. You still don’t know by the end of the season certain things about Sabi, like what are their views on being Muslim or how do dynamics work in the family exactly? You understand certain things, but other things are left mysterious. And somebody who’s grown up in a Pakistani family and is nearing 50, I still find certain things mysterious. So it seems accurate. I don’t understand [inaudible 01:18:21] out for you, but I think… It was a lot about, really about what, you only bring these things up as they need to come into play. You find that, did you find that for you as well, Sam?

Sam Thomson:

Yeah, absolutely. And I think we wanted to have it be representative of what Toronto feels like to live in too. It’s a very sort of Toronto show where it’s just part of the texture of the city, and is a very diverse sort of culture. And one specific thing I just remember from Post that kind of relates to this was for a while we were actually debating whether we would subtitle any of the sort of non-English languages that were used throughout the show. And I feel like that was kind of an indicator, even just the fact that that was a debate, that this is the world, this is how it exists, and people can… We don’t need to explain everything in a really sort of prescriptive way. This is just sort of the texture of the world of who all these people are. And we did end up subtitling in the end. We had to, but still.

Nona Khodai, ACE:

 Oh, great.

Omar Majeed:

I think my proudest moment of influence on the show was getting them to change a reference to, they were talking about some dish that was being made, and I think initially it might have been Buttered Chicken, and I was like, change it to korai. That was my one thing. Yay for me.

Nona Khodai, ACE:

That’s awesome.

Sam Thomson:

I actually had a question, kind of a general question for Nona. we sort of hit this in our little pre-talk, but I legitimately was very curious to know what was it like just working? How do you even do it? How do you make a show like Wanda Vision with all of the VFX heavy? And I mean obviously I’m sure this applies to Melissa and Jim too, but I just don’t have that experience. I’ve worked in animation a little bit, so I’m used to doing animatics and things like that. But just, what is that process like? Are you dealing with green screen footage? Are you dealing with building things? I’m very curious.

Nona Khodai, ACE:

Yeah. So we’re really lucky at Marvel to be able to have a lot of tools at our disposal, especially companies to help us pre-vis and post-vis, VFX heavy moments in the show, to tell the story for timing purposes. So say we’ll have like, so that clip that I showed, the moment she goes, she explodes back into whatever into her world. That was all done on green screen, outside. The backgrounds actually were all, it was on a back lot in Los Angeles, but we had to make it look like New Jersey. So all of that was filmed, part of it was filmed in Atlanta, and part of it was filmed in LA so we had to merge the background and the foreground together even as she was walking out. So just a normal shot you would think. But those were all the effect shots too. And we have this post-vis previous company called the Third Floor that helps us basically put in all the backgrounds and all the elements so we can time the shots properly.

And so we’ll time it out and then we’ll send those shots to the vendors with the post-vis on them to show basically what we’re doing. That whole sequence, I had to get post-vis, they pre-vised it and then they shot it, but they always shoot differently than the pre-vis always. So I had to recut it to make it work. And then we added post-vis to it. So all the wipes of from day present to past all those wipes, we had to add in post-vis. And then they shot that way later too. So I really had to cut those quickly in. I had timed it all out. We had pre-vis in places where I knew what the transitions were, but they also did shoot them differently too. So we did all those and then we sent it out to the vendors and then they gave us the shots back and then we would rework them in the cut until we finished. But yeah, it’s a lot of other people helping us kind of build and build until we get it right.

It feels daunting at first, but I always feel like it’s just normal editing, if you’re just getting the emotion out of the actors and the rest is easy because you have other people helping you. And Melissa, you have a lot in Ted Lasso too. You could talk about all those soccer games, all of that. That’s all visual effects. So, how about you?

Melissa McCoy, ACE:

Yeah, we do the pre-vis with to map out the games, the game play. And our season one, even before that, we just, because they shot all of the football scenes over a couple of nights for all the episodes, and so they had a specific amount of time. So we got the scripts and AJ the other editor and I, we each for episode, I was pulling YouTube clips and stock footage and just to get the beats and putting it together with title cards, like roy kicks and get the beats down. And then our VFX house was sending us the animatics and then we would replace that, and then we sent those packages over to London and the directors were like, this is wonderful because now I know what I need to check off. And then they were able to send us back even more. I feel like we gave them the building blocks for if you can get this, we can tell the story and then open them up with more time to get us some really cool things that I was like, oh, I didn’t have this in there and this is wonderful.

They had some really beautiful tracking shots and things like that. So yeah, we did a lot of that. But even in the scene I showed, just thinking we had to go going from the studio to the field. I was like, this isn’t, just cutting there, didn’t feel right. And I went and, because soccer Saturday is an actual show, so I was like, they have to have cut to a clip and have some sort of transition piece. And so I was scrubbing through YouTube to try to find an example, and then luckily, there’s so many wonderful people that work on the show that can help. So we had a VFX editor and I was like, can you match something like this that can get us there? That’s what opens up into the field is what their transition would be for the show. And he did it and it was so beautiful.

I was like, oh my God, thank you so much. And then they would shoot those with the actual cameras that they used for the show. So we got that footage and then they would do the actual Ted lasso camera, which is more handheld. And so they had run the show and Roy had done all the speech and all that stuff, and then they got in there with the handheld and they kept the cameras running, but the handheld camera. So the camera was in the scene sometimes, and then our director, Erica, who was phenomenal and did such a wonderful job in this show, and she was in there and I think maybe one of the writers was in there and you saw their shoulders in the studio cameras, but that was his best performance that met, I could go between Roy on the camera and Roy in real life, and I was just like, I don’t want to go to the earlier takes where it was clean because he’s… It’s just not, even though the performances are like, I’m so blessed with the performances, they’re so wonderful, but that was the performance that I needed.

And so I said, I tempted in, and I was like, look, his shoulder from this, we could. So it luckily never went in front of his face so that his actual shoulders are vfx. So there’s things like that that you don’t even see because we’re trying to get the character moments just right. And I was like, luckily you’re in a space where people are like, I see what you’re trying to do and not being like, just use an earlier take where they’re not in the camera. And I’m like, but you see there’s just a subtle, it’s wonderful. That’s beautiful, but this is the performance.

But I was thinking of what Jim said where he was saying, I could have gone with one of the bigger scenes, but this moment I feel like these little moments set up the bigger… If you don’t get those right, it doesn’t set up those big amazing scenes. And so there’s almost, you have that pride of I got this interpersonal moment right and that allows us to luxuriate. And I felt that in your clip too, where you really have that patience and finding that timing where you’re like, let’s sit in this moment and build this moment, and then we can bust into the big… When her heart explodes.

All the effects, but setting it up. And I really love that in both of those scenes, the patience and the build to them. And I’m just wondering, how often do you go back and watch and say, oh, I could give this more frames, or maybe I rush this moment and I could really luxuriate here and take some time there. Is it a process where you go back? Or are you like… Yeah, what’s your process of refining those moments to get them just right, so then you can go big?

Nona Khodai, ACE:

For me or for Jim?  Jim, why don’t you answer that one?

Jim Flynn, ACE:

I work with a director who, his expression is, you don’t ever finish a scene, you abandon it. And so when I, because I was watching those scenes from Bridgerton, and I was like, God damn, why don’t I have eight more frame in the tail of that shot? Or I could have done this or I’m never done editing, so it’s never perfect to me, but it’s good enough. I guess

Melissa McCoy, ACE:

That feels comforting because I feel that too. I’m always watching it and being like, oh, and my husband hates watching my stuff with me, and he’s just like, nut it’s fine. And I’m like… I’m just so hard on myself. So that’s good to hear. I’m not alone.

Nona Khodai, ACE:

I feel the same way. I feel I can’t watch my cuts. It’s really hard. That’s why it took me so long to figure out what scene to show. I didn’t know, I was going to do the bedroom scene with Vision and Wanda on the bed. I was thinking about that and I asked my assistant, should I show this? And they’re like, no, it’s a edit panel. You got to show editing. And I was like, but it’s editing. It was good. He was like, No, you got to show like a big moment. I was like, okay. But I was going to pick a very quiet moment too, like Jim. It’s so funny, but because it’s so hard to know.

Omar Majeed:

Because yeah, I honestly was very touched by the ending of WandaVision. Who am I kidding? I was just weeping. Anyways, so…

Nona Khodai, ACE:

Oh, Thank you.

Omar Majeed:

So I wasn’t expecting that, but what was great about that, that scene is everything that came before it too. And I think as editors, we appreciate those kinds of things too, where it’s the slow build up. Those little moments that really earn you those bigger ones. Just like this, that’s a deeply satisfying feeling you get when their hands start moving towards each other. You’re just like, oh, I’m so glad it took its time and went there, did this, and now it’s happening and I feel warm inside.

 

Jim Flynn, ACE:

It’s character. If you buy the characters and you like the characters, if their chest explodes and their house builds around and you’re like, Go house! If you didn’t care about them then it wouldn’t really matter that much. So if you can make your absolutely audience care about your characters, you can do all sorts of great stuff.

Gillian Truster:

I think that is the perfect way to end this panel because unfortunately we are out of time and I’m just enjoying so much listening to all of you. You’re also articulate and talented and charming, and this time has flown by, flown by. But thank you so much for taking the time for this chat. It’s been so much fun. Thank you.

Sam Thomson:

Thank you.

Jim Flynn, ACE:

Thank you all.

Melissa McCoy, ACE:

Thank you for having me. Nice to meet you all.

Omar Majeed:

Nice to meet you all too.

Jim Flynn, ACE:

Bye-bye.

Gillian Truster:

Pleasure, you guys.

Sarah Taylor:

Thanks so much for joining us today. And a big thanks goes out to our panelists and moderator. A special thanks goes to the 2022 Editcon Planning committee, Alison Dowler and Kim Mctaggart, CCE. The main title Sound Design was created by Jane Tattersall, additional ADR recording by Andrea Rush. Original music created by Chad Blain and Soundstripe. This episode was mixed and mastered by Tony Bao. The CCE is proud to support HireBIPOC. HireBIPOC is the definitive and ubiquitous industry-wide roster of Canadian BIPOC, creatives and crew working in screen-based industries. Check out hirebipoc.ca to hire your next crew or create a profile and get hired.

Speaker 20:

The CCE is a non-profit organization with the goal of bettering the art and science of picture editing. If you wish to become a CCE member, please visit our website, www.cceditors.ca. Join our great community of Canadian editors for more related info.



Abonnez-vous là où vous écoutez vos balados

Que voulez-vous entendre sur L'art du montage?

Veuillez nous envoyer un courriel en mentionnant les sujets que vous aimeriez que nous abordions, ou les monteurs.euses dont vous aimeriez entendre parler, à :

Crédits

Un grand Merci à

Kim McTaggart, CCE

Alison Dowler

Gino delos Reyes

Hosted and Produced by

Sarah Taylor

Design sonore du générique d'ouverture

Jane Tattersall

ADR Recording by

Andrea Rusch

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Musique originale par

Chad Blain

Sponsor Narration by

Paul Winestock

Commandité par

Jam Post

Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 073 – EditCon 2022: This Year in Canadian Film

The Editor's Cut: Episode 073 - Editcon 2022: This Year in Canadian Film

Episode 073 - EditCon 2022: This Year in Canadian Film

Today’s episode is part 1 of our 4 part series covering EditCon 2022 Brave New World.

Today’s panel is This Year in Canadian Film. 2021 saw the film industry bounce back with a fervor hardly seen before. With it has come a wealth of powerful and diverse home grown stories, such as the poignant sibling drama ALL MY PUNY SORROWS; the brilliant and raw SCARBOROUGH; 2022’s Canadian Oscar entry DRUNKEN BIRDS; and the gripping sci-fi thriller NIGHT RAIDERS. Join the editors behind the best that Canada has to offer as they talk storytelling in an intimate conversation.

This episode was generously sponsored by Blackmagic Design.

Black Magic Design Logo Sponsor

À écouter ici !

The Editor’s Cut – Episode 073 – EditCon 2022: This Year in Canadian Film

Sarah Taylor:

This episode was generously sponsored by Black Magic Design.

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

My process that works the best is that I emotionally react to performances, you know. I watch everything. I emotionally react, and I try to cut faster with my intuition than with my thoughts because if I start thinking too much, I get stuck.

Orlee Buium:

I like to watch all of the footage usually behind me on my chair with a wireless keyboard, and I’ll just kind of draw markers whenever I see a performance that I emote to.

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

I like to look at the first time I see the dailies not in the cutting room. So it could be home or on my laptop or just to get sort of first impression of the material. And then once I get into the room, then I’ll start marking stuff and making select and things like that.

Sarah Taylor:

Hello and welcome to the Editor’s Cut. I’m your host Sarah Taylor. We would like to point out that the lands on which we have created this podcast and that many of you may be listening to us from are part of ancestral territory. It is important for all of us to deeply acknowledge that we are on ancestral territory that has long served as a place where indigenous peoples have lived, met, and interacted. We honor, respect and recognize these nations that have never relinquished their rights for sovereign authority over the lands and waters on which we stand today. We encourage you to reflect on the history of the land, the rich culture, the many contributions and the concerns that impact indigenous individuals and communities. Land acknowledgements are the start to a deeper action.

Today’s episode is part one of the four part series covering EDICON 2022 Brave New World. Today’s panel is This Year in Canadian Film. 2021 saw the film industry bounce back with a fervor hardly seen before. With it has come a wealth of powerful and diverse homegrown stories such as the poignant sibling drama, All My Puny Sorrows, the brilliant and raw Scarborough, 2022’s Canadian Oscar entry, Drunken Birds, and the gripping sci-fi thriller Night Raiders. Join the editors behind the best that Canada has to offer as they talk storytelling in an intimate conversation.

And action. This is the Editor’s Cut.

[show Open]

A CCE podcast.

Exploring, exploring, exploring the art.

Of picture editing.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Hi everyone and welcome to the, This Year in Canadian Film panel at EDICON 2022. I’m Simone Smith. I’m an editor based in Toronto working in film and television, and super happy to be here. We’re super fortunate to have five very talented editors here representing four films, which were all part of Canada’s top 10 as well. So congratulations, everyone. So I have everyone’s bios just to give a little intro to everyone. So to begin with Orlee Buium is an editor with a passion for films with socially conscious content. She has 15 years of experience in the editorial department, including assisting on Kick-Ass two, The Expanse and The Broken Hearts Gallery. Her feature credits as an editor include Queen of the Morning Calm, which was also nominated for a DGC editing award, The Retreat, and Run Woman Run. Most recently Orlee locked picture on Michael McGowan’s latest feature, All My Puny Sorrows, which premiered at TIFF 2021 as a special presentation. Thanks for joining us, Orlee.

Next we have Jorge Weisz, CCE. Jorge was born and raised in Mexico City and is currently based in Toronto. He has worked on award-winning films such as Peter Stebbings Empire of Dirt, which premiered at TIFF 2013, Michel Franco’s, Las Hijas de Abril, sorry if I butchered that, which won the Un Certain Regards Jury Prize at the 2017 Cannes Film Festival. And recently on Danis Goulet’s Night Raiders, which premiered at the 2021 Berlin Alley. Currently, he’s teaming up again with Christian Sparkes for the film, Sweetland. Thanks for joining us.

Next up, we have Michelle Szemberg, CCE. After graduating from the film program at York University, Michelle worked for many years as an assistant editor. This allowed her to be mentored and collaborate with some of the leading forces in Canadian cinema. Her selected film and TV credits include Natasha, Below Her Mouth, Between, Un traductor, which prepared at the 2018 Sundance Film Festival, and Northern Rescue. Her latest film is the DGC award-winning All My Puny Sorrows, which has premiered at TIFF 2021.

Next we have Arthur Tarnowski, ACE. Arthur is a prolific editor whose work ranges from auteur cinema to popular comedies with a pension for action films. His feature credits span many genres and include Drunken birds, Bestsellers, The Decline, The Hummingbird Project, the Follow the American Empire, the Trotsky, Brick Mansions, Deadfall, Whitewash, and Compulsive Liar. His television work includes 19-2, Bad Blood, Being Human, Mohawk Girls, The Moodys and Mirage. He has also created over 150 film trailers, including some of the biggest box office hits in his native Quebec. Welcome, Arthur.

And last we have Rich Williamson. Rich Williamson is an Oscar shortlisted filmmaker based in Toronto. His work blends the best of fiction and documentary technique together with a focus on social issue subjects. Scarborough is his first dramatic feature with partner and co-director Shasha Nakhai. It made its world premier at the 2021 Toronto International Film Festival where it won the Shawn Mendes Foundation Changemaker Award, was first runner up for People’s Choice, and received an honorable mention for Best Canadian feature. Welcome, Rich.

All right, thanks everyone. Yeah, I mean, based on those bios, you could tell we have some real heavy hitters with us here, which is very exciting. But mostly we’re here to talk about these four films that came out this year. And yeah, just going to start with how did each of you get involved with your project? So starting with you Arthur, how did you come aboard Drunken Birds?

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

Well, Ivan Grbovic, the director, was going to edit the film himself. The producers told him maybe he should get an editor. So that’s how that came about. I’d worked with the producers, Kim and Luc, on a movie called The Whitewash a few years ago, and they asked me to look at the film. The film was a really good first cut, but basically there was some issues. And so they wanted feedback of maybe a more experienced editor, and it’s kind of a first. It’s his second feature, he does mostly commercials, so it’s a format that’s a little tougher to manage. So basically, we had a few conversations. I looked at his cut and we talked about it, and we sort of clicked. We’re sort of two Anglo Montrealers, so we were very simpatico and that’s how we came about. And I was in the midst of editing another film, so I had to wait. I had to make them wait a little bit.

But then the pandemic happened, and all of a sudden everyone had free time. So that’s when I started working on the film in March of 2020 and went on for a few months from then. And that’s how that came to be. And I’m very grateful that actually the pandemic happened so I had time to squeeze in the two films at the same time. And I’m very glad because it’s probably one of the films I’m most proud of.

Simone Smith, CCE:

That’s great. Yeah, I also want to mention that it is Canada’s selection for the Oscars, so.

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

That’s right.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Congratulations.

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

Thank you.

Simone Smith, CCE:

That’s a wonderful achievement.

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

Yeah, it’s very exciting.

Rich Williamson:

We’ve known Catherine, the writer for I think probably about 12 years. We first came across her at the Fringe Festival in Toronto, and she was performing a play called The Shotgun Wedding. And I remember Shasha and I both looking at each other and being like, “Wow, this person’s going to be famous. She’s so, so good.” Never thinking we were going to work with her, but for some reason we were just sort of, there was a gravitational pull. And as we got along in our careers, we crossed paths again. She would be in certain things that we were doing. She was in Shasha’s thesis project in university. Later on, the Real Asian Film Festival commissioned a project called Paruparo, which was a pairing between a filmmaker and a dancer. And it was about a Filipino nanny, and Katherine was the dancer in it. And it was only a two-day project, but she really, really got a great vibe from it.

She really enjoyed the way we work. She liked how we- We’re documentary filmmakers, so we have- our mind is on how to approach a community, how to be not too invasive with our filmmaking style. She really liked that. And we had such a good experience working on it that it’s one of those things sometimes you go, “Oh, well, we’ll work again in the future.” And years went by and we didn’t really talk to each other, we just went our separate ways. And Shasha and I were working on a project in Nigeria, and we came back for the Christmas holidays. And we had mail kind of piled up. And one of the things in the mail was the book Scarborough. And when we opened the first page, there was a little inscription that said, “I’ve had two other people want to make this into a film, but I love the way you guys work, and if you want to do it, I would love you guys to do it.”

So we were a bit reluctant. It was something that we weren’t really accustomed to. I’ve done a bit of fiction, but nothing on this scale and certainly nothing with this many actors and this many locations. And so it was a courting process where we kind of had lunches with her and just went, “Are you sure about this? Because I don’t think we’re really cut out for this.” And she was like, “No, no, I want you guys to do it.” So eventually we said yes, and yeah, just went from there and we just sort of took one step forward.

Simone Smith, CCE:

And then for All My Puny Sorrows, we had both Michelle and Orlee. So how did that come to be?

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

Yes, I’ll take this one because I was the first person contacted about it. Michael McGowan and I worked together for about 20 years. So he reached out in the fall. I had made a plan because I had a baby, and I’m teaching at work as well. And I sort of had this plan where I was like, “I’m going to wait, not work.” I took a little contract at York, I do that. And he is like, “How about I throw a wrench in your plans?” And he asked me what I was doing and he said, “We’re going to camera pretty much next month. Would you be interested in doing it?” And because I had already taken on certain commitments, I said, “Well, how would you feel if I bought Orlee on to co-edit? Because I was sort of coming out of maternity leave, and Orlee and I have had this relationship since 2012.

She was my assistant for many years. And then we co-edited The Morning Calm together. And it was such a great experience, I thought this would be a great opportunity to do it again. And I gave Orlee a call and asked if she was interested in doing it with me. And the rest is history. It’s kind of like they got green lit really fast. I mean, it was also COVID, so that was also a reason why I wasn’t sort of taking the work because I had no idea if daycares were going to shut down, if things were going to. And so I didn’t want to commit to something that I couldn’t do. And so having Orlee on was so that I wouldn’t let anyone down if something happened in the middle of this pandemic. And it was an amazing experience.

Simone Smith, CCE:

That’s great. Yeah. That’s nice having someone you’re that close with, and you have that trust that it’s in good hands.

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

Yeah, I don’t think it’s something that you can do with everybody, but Orlee and I have sort of a shorthand that has been built up every year. So I don’t know if you want to add to it.

Orlee Buium:

I was just going to say that I also had a little bit of a relationship with Mike from being a first assistant on two seasons of his TV show Between. So overall we all already had a dynamic going into it, which definitely made it an easier process with three of us in that respect.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Great. And Jorge, how did you come aboard Night Raiders?

Jorge Weisz:

First, I was contacted by Tara Woodbury, the producer who I’ve known for many, many years, going back to the Canadian Film Center. And she sent me the script, and she said that she really wanted to work with me. And I read it, and I really loved it. And then the next step was to have a conversation with Danis Goulet, the director and writer. And it was then when I fell in love with the project, it was just hearing her vision and her intentions, her honesty and her passion towards the material, just sold it. And also I realized we had a very similar approach to where we wanted to go with the material. So it felt very natural. And yeah, that’s basically it.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Cool. So going in order of the process, beginning with dailies, what is everyone’s approach to dailies and was it any different for this project? Why don’t you kick us off Michelle and Orlee?

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

Oh, okay. Well, we probably had a very different approach co-editing. So we were working remotely. Orlee was at her house. I was at my house, our assistant was at her house. And we kind of did gorilla style shared storage over Dropbox. We each had our own drives, but we shared our projects. And every day we would get the dailies. And Orlee and I would look at what was shot, and we would randomly pick scenes sometimes in the beginning and split it off. And she would assemble at her house, I would assemble, and then we would usually jump on Zoom and look at each other’s scenes and give each other some feedback. Do you want to continue Orlee?

Orlee Buium:

I feel like that’s the gist of the process.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah.

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

But I mean then once we were sort of stringing together the stuff, she would come over. And we’d watch together, and we worked. It’s kind of sync. There was some synchronicity of watching each other’s stuff, giving feedback. It was nice because there was a lot of fresh eyes. So it was always like I could see things in her cuts that she couldn’t see in her own. When you’re assembling, you kind of get stuck in your own world. So it was nice to have someone to feed off. But I guess, I mean, I don’t know if your question is how we approach our own assemblies or how we did it for this film.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah, I mean, what’s your usual? I mean, everyone’s different. Some people will watch everything. And then start to noodle or take notes or markers, or.

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

For me, I find that if I think too much while I’m assembling, I get stuck. So I really try to… I mean, I know some people do their first assembly and make it as tight as possible, but I feel like my process that works the best is that I emotionally react to performances. I watch everything. I emotionally react. And I try to cut faster with my intuition than with my thoughts because if I start thinking too much, I get stuck. And then I will tighten up. I usually do a second pass of my assembly, but I find if I stick to my sort of intuitive first impression of things, I’m actually quite surprised how it falls into place. When I overthink is when I get frustrated and stuck. So that’s like I used to try to get it perfect when I started out on my first pass. And now I find that I really try to lay it down in a way that’s sort of more emotional and without as much thought. And then I think afterwards sometimes.

Orlee Buium:

I definitely have a bit of a different approach. I like to watch all of the footage usually behind me in my chair with a wireless keyboard. And I’ll just kind of drop markers whenever I see a performance that I emote to. And I usually find that watching all the footage consistently makes it so that when I get to the point where I’m ready to start cutting the scene, I really have a solid understanding of what the shape of the scene is. And Michelle didn’t mention that we also use Script Sync for this project. So I am very loyal to Script Sync. I’ll really just go from the beginning and choose performances per line and really just throw a messy assembly down, and then I’ll do a second pass, where I kind of make it more into a scene using those performances.

And then on my third pass of it, is when I’ll really go and make sure I’m feeling. I’m really just in dropping markers on the timeline even when I’m doing that watch, I’ll just be sitting there, “Oh, I had a thought about something, I want to adjust there.” And then I’ll go and I’ll look through the markers and be like, “Oh, what was that thought I had?” But I always find that, that first time that I watch it through, once it’s kind of within the shape that I want it to be is when I can feel what’s going on the most. So I am never soft about when I choose to do that. I’ll never do it too early, I think because I really value that moment.

Simone Smith, CCE:

You only get one first impression, right?

Orlee Buium:

Totally.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah. And yeah, not enough praise for Script Sync, oh my God, what a game changer. For those that are not familiar or cutting it in different software, it lets you see the entire script, like a line script. And you can double click the line and see every take, every read of that line. It’s changed totally how I work. So yeah, not enough can be said for Script’s Sync. Lifesaver. Rich, what was your approach to the footage? I mean, being more doc style, I’m sure quite different.

Rich Williamson:

Yeah, it is a little bit different. And I think the hope was that we would have an editor. That I wasn’t going to have to edit it. In fact, we were hoping to have Simone edit it, Simone Smith.

But because of our budget, telephone, the whole thing, we got halfway through the film and it was like, “Oh my gosh, okay, everyone who can do double duty is going to have to do double duty. I’m unfortunately going to have to direct and shoot, also edit.” And it just became a necessity. So all of the things that we were hoping, like dailies, just didn’t happen. We were shooting the film and at the end of the day, you’re so exhausted that I’d like to be able to watch things at the end of the day and see what we got. But it was just this constant process of having to go back and shoot the next day. And we just didn’t have time. And so it just piled up. And I just hoped for the best, just hoped that things were turning out okay and just tried not to look back.

And I think around 15th or 16th day, we ended up shooting 38 days. The 15th or 16th day Shasha, my partner and I started watching. We just throw it on in the background. So we were totally exhausted. And we just hook up the camera to the TV, and we’d be doing whatever we needed to do to get ready for the next day. And it would just sort of be in the background. And we watched what’s happening. And so it was a comforting sort of thing of, oh, okay, things are going okay. It’s not too bad.

But it was a very unconventional process. And we shot in blocks with the hope that… Because it takes place over seasons, the hope was that in the off time, we’d be able to edit or look at the rushes. But because we were always planning and we’d have to cast more people for each new block and find locations, it was all the time was devoted to just casting locations and whatever else came up. And so really, I didn’t get around to editing it until COVID time when we shut down. And that was the time that was allotted. So it was good. It was kind of good. I mean, obviously it’s been terrible, but there was a silver lining to COVID.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah, it’s net negative, but there was some silver lining. Right?

Rich Williamson:

Right, exactly. Yeah.

Simone Smith, CCE:

And Arthur, how do you approach your material?

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

For this project, it was particular because the director had cut a version of the film, which by the way was quite good. If you’ve seen the film, there’s a lot of long takes. And so obviously those things I wasn’t going to mess with. But once I did take over the project, I did just go back to all the dailies. The film was shot on film, so there was a lot of material, but it was not like the crazy amounts we’re used to now, which helped. And they shot it a lot like Terrence Malick. They would rehearse all day and then at magic hour for two hours, they would shoot their whole day in those two hours. So it was very precise and very specific what they shot. But generally, what I like to do like most everybody else is look at the daily.

I like to look at the first time I see the dailies not in the cutting room. So it could be home or on my laptop or just to get a first impression of the material. And then once I get into the room, then I’ll start marking stuff and making selects and things like that. But I often find that it’s a good way to just get a sense of the film. You’ve read the script, you’ve got a sense of where things will be going. The other thing I kind of go back to a lot is what I call a dailies roll. And it’s like every day is one long sequence of all the material shot in that day. And I’ll just occasionally go back and scroll through that. Kind of the golden age of editing on actual film, you’d look for a shot that you’d have to roll through.

And I find doing that once in a while with your material, something will pop up that for one scene was not meant to be, but all of a sudden makes sense to use there. So I find it’s a way to keep the material alive in your head, even though you’ve gone through a scene and you’ve finished it, but there might be a little nugget leftover somewhere that you hadn’t thought about. So that’s something I tend to do on all the projects. And obviously on a film that I took over, I went back and looked at all the dailies and all that. But Ivan is also a very specific person. Those master shots that last several minutes, those were really thought out. And I mean, other than a few exceptions, those were pretty much the ones he had laid out in the beginning. So I didn’t have to worry about those too much. More the specific, more edited scenes, I guess.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Right.

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

And the structure for it. And by the way, I forgot to mention, but I really enjoyed all of your films, just really. And Rich, I feel so inadequate because I never shot a film I edited. I never co-directed. I’m like, wow. And you say that it was a chore, but it looks like a film that was edited by someone who’s edited many, many films before. So congratulations.

Rich Williamson:

Thank you very much.

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

Yeah.

Rich Williamson:

You could do it by the way. You could shoot. You could definitely.

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

Yeah, yeah. No, no.

Rich Williamson:

For sure, yeah.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah, that’s really interesting about keeping those daily reels. Because I know sometimes there’ll be bins you just haven’t opened for months because you just haven’t opened that scene. And you’re looking for a different line and you’re like, “Oh, I completely forgot this shot was there.” Yeah, that’s really interesting.

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

Exactly.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah. Jorge, how do you approach your footage, your material?

Jorge Weisz:

I have a bit of a different approach. Basically it’s been because of the projects that I’ve been doing, there have been more a lower budget. So out of necessity, we don’t have that many shooting days. So I need to very, very quickly assess what I have from the day and put it together as quickly as possible to make sure I don’t have to contact the set to tell them that I’m missing something. So I will basically get the first scene and put it together, even though I’ll be obviously going back and reediting and so on, but at least I can do a markup and just make sure the scene works. And then review if there are other performance that might be better. But at least I know that we are covered. And once we know we’re covered, I’ll move to the next one. And I’ll do everything like that for the whole day. And once I know we’re safe, then I can go back and revisit more takes and start polishing and looking for specific moments and shaping and so on, and reviewing more carefully the material.

But my first pass, the fast and dirty, will be just to make sure they don’t have to do any reshooting the next day. If we have the same location for which, I mean, even if we do, sometimes you do the call, and they don’t have the time or there’s no window opportunity to even do that, but…

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

They never have the time.

Jorge Weisz:

No. But at least I have to take the chance and say like, “Hey, I told you. You were informed.” So at least it’s not, “why you didn’t say, we were there with the actors.” So at least I do that, and it has worked very well. And in a sense I make these little markups of the scene. And then I can really take my time later without the pressure of set to really go through each take, and review the material carefully. But having already had my little scene already semi-assemble is also very helpful for it because I now understand what the scene is about, where we need to go, where we need to get, sorry. Yeah, and that’s just how I started working in shorts. So that’s the only way I know how to do it, and it’s working well for me.

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

Can I add something that was interesting about our assembly? Because we had worked with Mike for so long, I find when you work with new directors or people that you don’t sort of have a relationship with, you kind of stick to the script for your assembly in general. Whereas Mike said to us, “If you stick to the script, I’ll be really upset.”

So it was kind of like a great experience because he really actually kind of put pressure on us to do something different and be creative in the assembly and take chances even if he didn’t like it or whatever, there was a relationship there that we didn’t feel insecure to try things that were different, whether it be structure or intercutting or things that weren’t script based. So that was kind of a cool experience to be able to do that in our first pass and then present it to him so he could be surprised because he wanted to see what we would come up, whether he kept it or not, it didn’t really matter. But you know, you don’t really always get that experience working with directors that you don’t have that kind of relationship with. So that was kind of cool.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah, that must be very liberating.

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

Yeah.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah.

Orlee Buium:

We should clarify though, that it was our second pass. We kind of assembled it based in script order, watched it, and then we’re like, “Okay, here’s a bunch of things that we already know we want to work on before.” And that’s kind of when we started shuffling a little bit and experiment a little bit more, intercutting. So by the time Mike came into the room with us, sorry, we were already a good two weeks into playing around, I’d say.

Simone Smith, CCE:

But you were doing this all, I’m sorry, go ahead.

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

He gave us a little longer with our assembly just so that we could sort of try things and be creative and our first pass was two hours and 20 something minutes and we cut a lot at that assembly.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah. So I’m assuming most if not all of these films were cut during COVID. I’m not sure about Night Raiders if you guys locked before or…

Jorge Weisz:

Yeah, we locked when we were about to go into lockdown. So basically the whole film was done before that, but we had a lot of visual effects and obviously its sound and so on. So picture locked early on into the pandemic, which was great for going to the next stage. But it’s terrible for me because nobody was producing anything. So I was without work for a long time. But it was pretty neat because we were a co-production with New Zealand and by the time we were ready to start sound design and visual effects, New Zealand was kind of coming out of their lockdown. So all the post houses were kind of open and ready to receive our material. So the timing in that regard was perfect.

Simone Smith, CCE:

That’s good. Were you tuning into virtual sessions at weird hours with the time difference or…

Jorge Weisz:

Yeah. Yeah. We had a few. It was just- even before that, even while we were editing that we were just sending notes. So I will send an email and I knew that will receive a response the next day.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Right.

Jorge Weisz:

And it was just like, yeah, very strange.

Simone Smith, CCE:

And then in terms of the edit, was it standard you and Dannis in a room or was it more she’d leave you with notes that you would apply and come back to or?

Jorge Weisz:

No. No. She likes to stay in the room every day. Sometimes it will be, we will just discuss a lot and I’ll make some notes and she’ll leave early. But for the most of the time, yeah, she was in the room with me and sometimes she’ll go into the corner and into her laptop and let me do my thing and reconvene once the scene was fixed. But I kind of like to do that. I like to have the director next to me so we can ping pong and just have that collaboration very alive and conversation constantly. And it’s like a laboratory, right. So I like that. Yeah.

Simone Smith, CCE:

And Arthur for Drunken Birds, were you doing virtual sessions? Were you in the room?

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

Yeah, we were basically, because I did sort of, while this was pre COVID, I did sort of a one week pass of restructuring just to give them an idea of my thoughts on what we should do and that included putting slugs of scenes I think should be in the film that haven’t been shot. And that was in January while I was finishing the other film. So then they thought about that. Then when March came around, I was finishing the other film, the pandemic hit then was like they were actually supposed to go to China to shoot a sequence, which ended up being shot the first thing shot in Montreal in COVID time, which was surreal. I don’t know if you remember the scene in the Chinese sort of the painting. So that’s five extras and about six cuts in that shot.

So it’s quite a coup of mise en scene because they basically, with COVID restrictions and all that, they can only have five actors on set and they want to create this huge thing. Anyway, so we definitely had stuff that came in after, but most of it was edited from March until July and we unlocked about five times. I have a very intense director who likes to tweak till the umpteenth hour.

We actually were supposed to be at TIF 2020, but everyone was like, “We’re going to rush crazy people for festival that’s going to be half there.” So everyone decided let’s just take a break and we’ll submit it next year and let’s just make the best film possible. So we ended up working, I would say almost till October, November on and off of course. But basically, yeah, so it was, and actually again, pandemic net crap but overall good because I’ve been meaning to get an avid at my house, but I just hadn’t gone into the whole process of getting one. And then the director had an avid, so he just gave me his avid. I worked from home, we were working on FaceTime, if you can believe it. I had my phone out and he had all the dailies at home, so he knew the film inside out. So quality of picture and sound was not a big issue for him. So we basically worked day in, day out with the FaceTime on. Then we realized we could have done it on Zoom the whole time, but that’s a whole other story.

So that’s pretty much how we worked. We didn’t actually sit in the same room until we did tweaks, I guess in the third wave in October or something like that, where actually the avid went back to his place and by then I got my own avid. And so we were working at his place over a couple of weekends. So the first time we’re actually in the same room together. And as much as Zoom is great and everything, there’s something about physically being in the room where you can gauge a reaction and you could really sort of feel what everyone’s really feeling and not sort of through a screen or whatever. But yeah, so that’s how we worked it out.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah, it’s just not the same as being able to pop off for a hour long lunch together.

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

Exactly.

Simone Smith, CCE:

And all those things that come with working in person.

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

Absolutely. Absolutely.

Simone Smith, CCE:

And for All My Puny Sorrows. So you were working over Dropbox yourselves, but once it came to director sessions, how did you manage that?

Orlee Buium:

We did a bit of a hybrid edit. So Mike doesn’t live in Toronto, so he was pretty happy to not have to come in all the time and have the option of doing a little bit of time over Zoom. So we were doing three days a week in person at Michelle’s house with masks on and air circulation, windows open everything. And then on, well Thursdays, Michelle was teaching at York, so it was kind of just me hanging out in the edit room with whatever miscellaneous things they’d kind of left on the to-do list for the week. And then I’d send out Dropbox links to Mike and Michelle to kind of get their feedback on it. And then Friday we were working over Zoom as well, but none of those days were very long because I don’t know if any of us had worked up a tolerance for long zoom days at that point, but it was kind of cool ’cause we would, Michelle and I would just kind of pop on and off screen sharing each of our computers, which definitely helped with some of the Zoom fatigue.

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

And in person it was kind of similar because we would be working through the film and the director’s cut and it sort of happened that Orlee cut most of the first half of the film and I cut most the second half of the film. I mean not everything. So she’d be in the driver’s seat, I’d be on the couch behind with Mike, and then when one of my scenes would come up, we’d sort of switch our settings and take over. So we were both driving the avid and both sitting behind. So it was kind of interesting as an editor to sit in the director’s chair as well and watching the cutting process from behind. You see it in a really different way and you’re able to give notes in a different way than when you’re actually sort of driving the avid and actually doing the work. So that was a really interesting experience, I think.

Orlee Buium:

I think it was especially interesting when we’d get a little bit stuck in what to do with the scene and we’d switch off on the chair and then as soon as the other person was on, we were like, “Oh my God, it’s so clear from back here.” You really get caught up in the minutiae sometimes when you’re driving.

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

And I think Mike at first wasn’t sure how it would work with two editors, but I think after we found our group he was really into the process because there was, when there was a disagreement on something and be like, “Okay, what do you think?” And there was a third person to, or there was someone to bounce other ideas off of, or if we weren’t sure about something, it’s like, “Well, what do you think?” And so there was an interesting dynamic having three people in the room. Again, I don’t know if it would work for everybody, but for us it worked really well.

Jorge Weisz:

Did you end up switching, you go to the beginning and Orlee going to the end, or it was just stuck to your half?

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

No, we did, I think there were certain points where Orlee would come and cut some of my scenes and I would at a certain point Orlee would be like, “Why don’t you try…?” There were certain scenes that there were some scenes that we had to work on a lot more than others. And then there was the time when my son broke his wrist and I had to go to the hospital and Orlee and Mike, they cut some of my stuff and I came back and with a nice reaction to what they had done. But it was, it was great because then we found the place after where I had left the room and they were able to chop something apart that I might have fought for and it sort of took us in a new direction. So that was a fun experience as well.

Simone Smith, CCE:

That’s great as well.

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

I’m currently working with two co-directors and we’re three in the room and my power level has increased tremendously because I end up splitting the difference. Anyway, sorry, go on.

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

Yeah, I’ve done, I’ve done co-directors before too, so I know that that dynamic,

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah, majority rules, right? Two against one. And Rich for yourself. I mean, you’re cutting at home, your co-director is also your life partner, so not that different in COVID guessing it’s more or less the same process it would’ve been otherwise.

Rich Williamson:

It’s pretty much the same as it would usually be generally with editing by myself. And I think what Sasha usually prefers is that I get kind of a rough cut and then show it to her, and then we talk about what needs to be done. And so she just lets me go for however long and is usually like, “How long is this thing going to take?” But she’s patient and that once we get to that point where it’s kind of in a rough cut space, then we sort of talk about where we want to go from it- from there. And then ultimately trying to get friends and colleagues to get involved and provide their input too. And you and our other three editing friends from the COCC who were part of that as well.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah. So before we get into clips, I find with most projects there’s usually kind of the one major thing you overcome where whether it’s characters not coming across the way you want, it’s hard to get the run time down. So what was your one major hill to climb on each of your projects, starting with you, Jorge?

Jorge Weisz:

Well, there were a few but one, there were the visual effects. The visual effects in the Raiders are interesting because they’re subtle. We didn’t want to make a movie that it was packed with them. And so it was just something that it was in the background, but they still have an important role in the film and some of them are, the characters interact with them. So it was very important to just create something that will help the edit and it will form how to pace it with  invisible things. So Craig Scorgie, my assistant, was a lifesaver in that regard. He basically saved the day, big time. He’s very strong with the VFX, and he really created this kind of shapes and elements that will just be a placeholder but will be alive. So we were able to sense how the scene will really, really feel. And it’s incredible.

Once I saw the effects later, the real thing, it has almost the same movement as the little shapes that Craig created. And for the long time there was a title card, drones doing these things and things flying, and it was just like the pacing was off and it was just confusing. And we didn’t know if it should be shorter, it should be longer. And it was very tricky just to understand how to find that sweet spot. And it wasn’t until Craig created this thing that it was just, “Okay, now we know what to do and how to do it.” So I was like, “Ah, yes.” that was our biggest one for sure.

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

Yeah. And were you able to go back in and tweak once the VFX was in and sort of adjust?

Jorge Weisz:

Yeah, but it was just very little. It was just like we created a every shot with handles. So there were always if needed to be a little bit longer or shorter, but not much. And I think it was because of the work we did before that, it was extremely helpful just to really get it very, very close to the final product.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Michelle and Orlee, what was a major challenge in All My Puny Sorrows?

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

We each want to answer this or you want me to go first, Orlee?

Orlee Buium:

Of course. Yeah. What are you going to say?

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

I’m trying to think. I think we had some challenges with starting a lot of the restructuring. And we did some re-shoots of the flashbacks of the little girls. So I think the flashbacks were a little bit of a challenge and how to pace them out and where to put them in the film. And also we restructured a lot of the scenes to build the emotional, I hate using the word arc, but the arc of the characters. And there’s a lot of, we played a lot with push and pull of emotions in the film. So I think pacing and tension and structure were something we were constantly working on and also cutting down time. As I said, our assembly was quite long.

Orlee Buium:

Well, I think especially because it’s such a dialogue heavy film, really finding that ebb and flow of tension was important because we wanted to make sure that people were continuously engaging with the dialogue. And I think definitely after the amount of times that we saw it, and we only saw it I think one time with an audience. So really not having that intuitive feeling outside of the edit room I think was a challenge. And it was kind of incredible seeing edits hit because seeing it with a full theater and the amount of that people laughed in the theater that looking back on the edit suite, I was like, “Oh, I didn’t know that was going to be a funny thing.” And I think sometimes when you have test screenings earlier on, you maybe have a little few more hints and can build around that.

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

It’s true, making sure we really were, because the dialogue is so long, we played with the pacing of it to make sure it was moving, and we did a lot of intercutting and flashbacks and all of that stuff. But it’s true that the levity and the humor, I think we knew some things were working, but when we did see it in an audience, there was so much laughter. And for such a sort of sad film, the levity was, it really helped balance the emotion of the- in the film.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah, for sure. And yeah, it would be hard to judge that without an audience and finding that balance, which you’ve done a wonderful job where it’s just, it’s never too down or bringing you down too much, even though it is such a heavy subject matter. So kudos.

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

I think it’s interesting and with COVID not having a test screening is a new experience. I think we didn’t screen it for more than five people or six people in a room at a time. And then that was only a few times. And usually you’ll have a bigger sort of test screening for the edit.

Orlee Buium:

And I think some of the kudos definitely goes to the script, right? We didn’t necessarily always know what we were cutting in terms of the levity, but it was on the page. I’m like, “Yeah, it’s Mike.”

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

And I think it was in the book as well. So I think Mike really tried to capture the essence of the book.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Arthur, what was a major challenge?

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

Well, there was a couple of things. Like I said, the film is such a visual feast that when we leave those visual moments and we’re more in the intimacy of a dialogue scene, that’s where it can be a challenge because it sort of feels like it’s a different movie almost. So actually I won’t talk about it too much now because it’s the clip I chose for that exact reason. But one of the characters, for example, the matriarch of the family on the farm was seen as someone who was aloof and running to find the next Mexican conquest. And there was not a lot of empathy for that character. So it was a question of finding the right structure, putting the scenes in the right order so that your perception of that character was not this sort of, she’s just hitting on these poorer migrant Mexican workers to get away from her husband that she’s not in love with anymore.

And that was really not what the director and the co-writer cinematographer wanted. So it was to find the balance that instead of the first time we see her, she’s lying in a forest trying to learn Spanish. The first time we see her, she’s working. Just the way you introduce a character makes your perception of who they are, so much different. So that was a bit of a challenge. And the middle part of the film had a weight to it that the front and the end of it was sort of working on all cylinders. So we had to find a way to pick the moments that were going to stay and those that weren’t. And also, so it’s a multiple character story, so having all that work with each other instead of against each other. So that was, I would say the biggest challenge was to keep all of the twirling plates going at the same time in the right order.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Great. And Rich, what was a major challenge in the edit?

Rich Williamson:

Well, to Arthur’s point, I think the balancing so many characters, Catherine’s book is such a mosaic of different characters, and that’s the whole kind of point. It’s just this sort of interweaving, not a traditional plot. People just sort of bouncing off each other. And so during the edit it was definitely a challenge trying to figure out how to give everybody the space that was needed. So setting them up, making sure that they’re a fleshed out character, that you know what’s up with them, what they’re going on in their head and what their goals are, and then getting the audience attached to that enough that they want to go along with it. And also to shift into another character and still be okay with that. So that was always a challenge, and particularly when you talk about things like run time, it becomes difficult because then you start to realize you can’t really put it in a box.

You can’t say, “Okay. I’d love the film to be, I love films that are an hour and a half. I love some films that are two hours, some are 2:30, some are three hours,” everything belongs in a different box. With this film, it just felt like with that many characters happening, it’s impossible to put it in a small package. You kind of have to give everybody their time. And we really wanted to just focus on moments and just allow people to give looks and for expressions and just faces to say things as opposed to just informing the cut all the time. So I think that was the biggest difficulty, just the balance. And Catherine was great because she wrote the book and she wrote the screenplay, and so she actually did a lot of the work ahead of time, so she was able to cut out characters that she felt were unnecessary.

And sometimes it was actually quite surprising. There were some characters where I was like, “Wow, that I didn’t expect that to go.” But then you look at it and you’re like, “Actually that works a lot better.” And if you compare the book with the film much, the film is much more focused on the three kids. And it felt like with the film you have to keep it moving, you have to, there’s still a pace that people are expecting and there’s certain sort of, yeah, there’s just certain expectations with a film that you don’t have with a book, a book, some more kind of, you can just sit with it, be in someone’s mind for a bit. So yeah, they were just different and sort of recognizing that. Yeah.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Right. All right. It’s time to watch some clips. So we’re going to start with All My Puny Sorrows. Did you want to set up the clip for us?

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

[inaudible 00:51:40] … orlee

Orlee Buium:

Okay. So in this scene, I guess there’s only one piece of information that we would love the audience to know, which is that the two characters in the car just had really awkward sex.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Great. Let’s play the clip

 

[clip plays]

Simone Smith, CCE:

All right, thank you so much. Do you want to talk about how the scene came together?

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

Yeah, I can take this. Since this was a mammoth scene that was intercut, I think the assembly of the whole scene was started in the car. The car is longer. It was about 17 or 18 minutes to the end of that hospital scene. The clip only covers part of it. But it was a really interesting experience, cutting such a long scene. It was exhausting to assemble it. It was never ending. It was so performance based, that you really just had to watch the footage. But the way they shot it was really interesting, because they shot the same slates, but with slightly different angles. There was a lot of movement. They covered the whole scene. They didn’t break it down that much. But this is an example of inter cutting, as well as this push and pull tension that we were working on. These sort of like- building up, building up, and then releases. There was a lot of that in this film with either humor, or anger, sadness, all these emotions and this build, this build. And then, this release at the end of this clip when they had the fight. And then, what happened afterwards, the silence.

Yeah, and every time we watched this scene, this scene is the one where, you feel like you’re clenching almost when you’re watching it as it builds. And then, you have this, you take a breath factor with them when they take a breath. And that never changed, the more we watched it and the more we crafted it. And this gets better. I think we’ll use this as an example.

Orlee Buium:

I think the fight was so challenging, because if you think the actors said to the director, we’re going to overlap each other. So there’s a lot of stuff that was, we were just stuck with. But I think aside from a few tweaks in the build of the fight, it’s Michelle’s assembly. She just did such an incredible job with it. And I think every time I watched, I was like, “Oh, this scene.”

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

Oh, we did play a lot with the car. The car was really-

Orlee Buium:

The first part.

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

… Yeah. And how we intercut it, and all of that.

Orlee Buium:

I think also not having that audience feedback, we really felt like we wanted the car stuff to be tight. We spent a lot of time being like, “Okay, what else can we take out of this sequence?” And I feel like what’s left is really the meat of what should be there. But one of my favorite moments that came along really late into the edit, was after your structure is amazing, it cuts back to Alf. And she laughs, and then we go back into the scene in the truck. And that wasn’t there for a really long time. And then, as soon as we put it in, it gave this extra amount of levity, that I think we were part of, do we need this, do we not need this? But I think we also laughed every time. So we were like, all right, we’re keeping it.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah, this scene’s a great example of that. You have this incredibly heavy situation going on, but then the bit about the crappy metaphor and all that, it’s so refreshing to have those things interspersed with such drama, but also it doesn’t ever feel forced or it doesn’t belong there. It just, that’s life. It’s the sorrow and the comedy all wrapped into one.

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

And we got a good laugh when she said, I have a cleaning lady. Those were the moments. At tiff that got a laugh in the middle of this really heavy fight, that you can have that, was amazing. It just made the film what it was.

Orlee Buium:

And also, a tribute to the two actresses, because I don’t know what, I think it would’ve been, it could have been so hard, but I think they really nailed the performances. So it was exciting to work with that footage.

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

Yeah. It’s so nice when you have choice, and you’re not putting around or solving performance issues, but you have choice. Okay, which direction do I want to go? How do I want to, when you have lots of great performance choices and you get to sculpt it, rather than trying to cut around or cover up performance issues, when you’re just blessed with getting great performances, and getting to build it from there.

Simone Smith, CCE:

And how much would you say performance was guiding the edit versus using different takes and shaping the performance in the edit?

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

Again, this is where I don’t overthink things. I think performance guided. What Orlee said, I remember now. It’s all coming back to me, about the overlapping. So there was a bit of out taking, and having to do a lot of… Luckily, I have a lot of experience with sound, so a lot of creative dialogue editing to make sure that I could keep the performances I wanted. I think Orlee and I both have a lot of sound experience, so we did that throughout the film, which is something that I always try to do to save what I want to use. Overlapping is all editors.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah.

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

Yeah. But you can’t, in those emotional scenes, you can’t control that. They take it where it’s going to go, and then you have to craft around it. So I definitely think performance led the edit, especially in the fight. I think we led the edit with cutting, and stuff like that. But yeah.

Orlee Buium:

Well, and definitely some of the less emotional in that way scenes. We had so many options with, between performance and issues. Like the other hospital scene, where it’s really just two statics of the two girls. Earlier in the movie, we could entirely craft the performance there and the pacing of the scene, a very different way than this scene.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Overall, the film just has a real precision to it. Everything feels razor sharp to the correct frame length. How was that process, and how did you get there?

Orlee Buium:

It just happened.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah.

Orlee Buium:

I think one of the things that I think Michelle brought up a lot, was transitions. And I think there’s a lot of harsh transitions, where you’re cutting into the middle of scenes. And it’s like, it’s not what we’re used to. So I think there was a little bit of a bump with intuition, but I think as we got deeper into the edit, at least Michelle, I think I always was like, “I don’t think it’s as big a deal as you knew.” But I think when we were deeper into the edit, it became really clear that that was just the language of the film. And it was so consistent throughout, where you’re just thrown in and out of situations. And I don’t know, the film made itself work.

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

It took me a while, because I was trying to pace out, in the beginning. I wanted slower transitions. I wanted moments to process what happened in the scene before. And Mike and I would talk about it. And Mike had a vision on wanting a certain pace for it. And after a while when I was watching the film as a whole, and I saw how consistent it was to do this throughout, and then how it built through the film. I really jumped on board with it. It was definitely different than a traditional pacing, that maybe we’re more used to. But it became the film.

Orlee Buium:

Something else I will say on that though, is that we found it really hard to judge edits when just watching the scene in isolation. So often, we were like, “We can’t know if this is working until we watched the cut from the beginning,” or we have to go five scenes earlier and reinvest the emotion. And actually, during EditCon last year, I remember the editor from Normal People said he had a experience like that. And that was reinforcing for me, for letting it be okay that that was our experience. But I think all three of us, we just would watch the scene and be like, “Let’s, next, next, pass. We’ll see if this works.”

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

Yeah. It’s interesting, because I don’t think any of us had felt that way before, but it was really hard to evaluate. Because like I said, some scenes were so interconnected and they built from previous stuff, so you really had to watch long chunks of the film to really know if something was working.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Great. Yeah. All right. So we’re going to move on to our next clip from Night Readers. Jorge, do you want to set up the clip?

Jorge Weisz:

Yes. I love this clip. It comes early in the movie, but it’s a very important moment where, basically, it’s a turning point in the film, where the character is going to be cornered yet again into making a very, very difficult decision. So this is a set up.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Great. Let’s take a look.

 

[clip plays]

Simone Smith, CCE:

Okay. Jorge, do you want to tell us about how this scene came together?

Jorge Weisz:

Yeah. Well, I really love this scene, because it has Amanda Plummer, and she’s just an incredible actress, and very, very rich material she gave us to work with, and at the same time, very different. So there was a lot of possibilities, very many directions where this thing could have gone. And it’s interesting just by revisiting the footage, how we end up using really a little bit of everything. But what I love about this scene is just like, it’s very, very tense, but very, very intimate. And that’s basically why I chose it to show it to you, because it was an important point in the story. But just to show that even in the moments that these characters are living is really important, just to maintain this intimacy and this closeness and the importance of connection and the pressure in a very, I don’t know, very, very intimate way.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And yeah, just going back to Amanda Plummer’s performance, she makes some really odd choices that work, that I would’ve never thought, just a very unique performer, which is really interesting to see.

Jorge Weisz:

The scene, okay, it can go in so many different ways, but I think understanding what the scene is about and just really creating this kind of Frankenstein of the performance. Just say we were shaping it into something that became, in my taste, very, very powerful as a character. Just say what she faces here

Simone Smith, CCE:

And really at its core of the film is the struggle of a mother who’s trying to do best for her daughter and the cost involved with that. But then you also have this sci-fi element. So how was it balancing those two tones throughout?

Jorge Weisz:

For me, something that really, the reason why I really was attracted to this film was not because of the sci-fi element. The sci-fi element, for me, is just part of the background. And it’s a tool to tell this story, and tell things that we already lived. So it was just a great tool to use to tell this story. But basically, what I love about it is it’s really, it’s the other part, the intimacy part, the community, the love, the importance of family. So it was tricky, because at the end of the day, it is also a sci-fi film. It has all these drones and visual effects. So you don’t want just to throw it out a window, but at the same time, it’s not a Marvel film.

So it was a very, very tricky, it was tricky to navigate. And it was tricky sometimes, even when we were showing the film, test screening. Say that some people wanted to be, they were expecting to see an action film. And it’s not, right? So you balance those things out and keep it true to what Danis wanted to say, what she wanted to, how she wanted to portray this characters and the language I, yeah, I don’t know. Why I was attracted was because of the other reasons, not because of the sci-fi part.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Right. Yeah. And given that it is sci-fi in the a dystopian, not too distant future, there’s a lot of world building involved, but it’s done in a very efficient way. And how did you find that process of telling people just enough to understand this world and the context?

Jorge Weisz:

I mean, I loved it because even if we were having meetings with the BFX team, they were just throwing ideas of how to do this thing and just make it so big. And we were always, especially Danis, was always, okay, no, no, let’s just keep it more, let’s keep it sophisticated. And was she was peeling and make it really to the essential. So that’s just part of the background, and it’s not distracting. Those things are not dictating where the story’s going. And that really helped me, because then I could really focus on the character’s arcs and the performance, and just the journeys of these two women.

Simone Smith, CCE:

So in your test strings, was there a balance of some people being like, “Oh, I’m a little bit confused as to what’s happening here?” Or was it always pretty clear for people?

Jorge Weisz:

Well, a little bit, but it was very interesting because there’s something, the way the movie begins and ends, that came out in the edit, it was not part of the script. And that really helped set the tone. I think just by having a voiceover, that from an elder, so that the movie begins inquiry with a voiceover, narrating a story. I think the whole tone just changes. And then, you understand what the rhythm and maybe what the importance of the story is about. It was challenging, because I remember in test screenings, people wanted to see more of the action, and see more of these fights, and the visual effects. And that was never the movie that we intended to do. So I’m very happy that Dannis was really clear what she wanted to do, how she wanted to do it, how much of that technology she wanted to show. And she was just very clear in where to focus. So yeah, I’m very happy that I had that director. So.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah, it’s definitely something at the wrong hands that could just be so over the top. And it’s just also tastefully done. It’s, yeah, really an achievement.

Jorge Weisz:

Yeah. Thanks. It was, that’s so great, because sometimes you have so many opinions and it’s very easy. I’ve been in so many rooms where when you get this feedback, and that feedback, you are so close to the material, so you start doubting yourself, and maybe start making the wrong decisions, and you want to make something good that people like. So then, all of a sudden, you start shifting to please more, and then you’re taking a different direction. And that can really hurt the whole project. So I was very happy that in here, we were really solid and focused on where we wanted to go. And yeah, some people might have not liked this, because of that, and we were just a bit stubborn. But I’m really, really proud of the direction we took. Yeah.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Great. All right, so next, we’re going to take a look at a clip from Drunken Birds. Arthur, do you want to set it up for us?

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

Sure. Well, it goes back to, there was so many different clips I could have picked. There’s this scene in the rain, which lasts 10 minutes, which was a lot of fun to cut. But I would say, because I’m assuming a lot of editors are watching this, and maybe people want to learn about editing. So for me, the clip I chose, it was really, for me, it shows you the power of editing, because, not because of my editing, but just what you can do with the material you’re given. The fact that we had a scene, which is the introductory scene of the farming family, and it was really a scene which had a lot of exposition dialogue, explaining a lot of things, showing us that the child, that the parents are in conflict. And so, the whole idea of the way the scene turned out now, I think we went through about 50 iterations of this scene.

And with the director, we were joking that if we ever gave an editing class, we would just show the 50 versions of this scene, and it would be a big lesson in editing. But basically, for me, the scene shows the power of removing dialogue sometimes, and simplifying things. And the other aspect was having to do with the characters. The Julie character, which is the mother of the family, we had in the original edit of the film, we didn’t really see her working on the farm as much. And so, what I did, is when I put the scene together, the newer version of the scene, I actually went on some stock footage library, and I had someone typing on a calculator, working, to show that this person is not just sitting around there. She’s working all the time, if it’s either on the farm, or in the office, or whatever. So to give more rounding out that character as a fully normal person, who works and who’s tired.

And so, that’s a scene that was, when we did the China shoot, which was supposed to happen in China, which was shot in Montreal. We also did a few scenes that we reshot, and that was one of the- scene in the office. And the other thing I suggested to the directors, would be nice to know the history of that family on that farm, because we mention it, but we never see it.

PART 3 OF 4 ENDS [01:21:04]

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

So they created a whole sequence where we see the photos of the ancestors on the wall, and then we come into a picture of the couple when things were better. So we see the past of this relationship. So all these things show don’t tell, and I find it’s an interesting way of doing it. Obviously, we can’t always re-shoot scenes or shoot new scenes, but that was something that happened from my first screening where I felt I wanted to get to know that family in a different way and maybe in a more deeper way. So I knew it.

Simone Smith, CCE:

All right, let’s take a look. 

 

[clip plays]

Simone Smith, CCE:

All right. So yeah, definitely that photo really struck me as well, because the contrast in how they appear in that photo versus their relationship now, it really does help set them up as a couple.

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

Exactly. And the idea was to, I mean, it hits, it ticked so many boxes. That little, I don’t know, 50 second scene of the pictures of the ancestors, the office, it shows that she’s working, all these things, and you can tell she’s not happy. But it was all a question of giving a bit of more screen time to that character. And then the actual scene in the kitchen when they’re eating was much longer. It was maybe three pages of dialogue, which are no longer there. The other thing, the neighbor that came by was one of his neighbors. I said, “wouldn’t it be more interesting if it was the Mexican workers?” And when he comes back, we added a new line, where he says, “wow, there’s a lot this year.” And the whole tension of the family is regarding the fact that she had an affair with the worker the previous year.

Everyone knows it, no one’s talking about it. And so at that point in the film, you don’t exactly know that, but you have some inkling. And so the whole idea was that the tension is so intense that they won’t even talk to each other. And so it made the scene much more organic, I think, and it made the scene have a tension to it, whereas if it was filled with dialogue, it didn’t quite do that. So yeah, that’s why I chose that clip, and hopefully it works… Oh and the other thing was the bus at the end was actually from a scene way further in the movie, but I thought right after that scene, we go into this magic realism scene where she remembers her former lover, which we’re not sure at the point it happens that it’s actually not happening. We discover later. That was kind of in her head, but I thought having a moment, a trigger of the bus going by helped that and also made for a nicer cut from the kitchen to her smoking her cigarette. It was a bit of a weird cut. So we were trying to figure that out for the longest time. And then just putting that shot of the bus there sort of helped all that work much better.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Great. Yeah, and you were kind of talking earlier about these long takes and yeah, the film definitely feels more observational. You’re not forcing us to look at things like you really leave the audience up to themselves to what they want to take in from each scene. How much of that was planned beforehand, and how much of that was decided in the edit?

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

Well, obviously you have to shoot those if you’re going to have them in your movie, so definitely it was thought out. But I think overall in the film, as the film progresses, we have less of that and then it picks up again when we’re with the young girl in the city, that’s a really long one. But I think, yeah, definitely Ivan is a big fan of the oner, if you could make a oner movie, I think you’d be pleased. But what’s interesting in this film also is that there are a lot of scenes that seem like oners, but they’re not. Just as an example, quickly is the scene where we first meet the couple in the sort of flashback in Mexico when they’re sitting in a car and she’s reading a letter, that scene has about 12 cuts in it. But because they were in dark and sort of shady, we could change takes. We did all kinds of crazy things. But yeah, so it doesn’t look edited, but there’s a lot of it.

Simone Smith, CCE:

And overall, the one line that stuck out was when the one worker says that he has two lives, he has his life when he is on the farm, and then his life back home in Mexico, the daughter has her life at home and then in the city with her friends, the wife with her lover, and then her husband. So there’s all these dualities going on. How did that inform the edit?

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

Well, did it actually inform… I never even thought of that aspect that everyone has this, the one thing that did stick out is that everyone is exploited by someone. That was the sort of common thread. I wouldn’t say that that duality was necessarily in the thought process of the editing, but definitely in the structuring of film. And when, for me, editing a scene is obviously super hard and super important to do well. But to me, when you watch a film, the strength of the editing is how you go from one scene to the next. And I think on any film, it’s always the same thing. It’s like, do we go after he walks in, walks out, all these things? It’s always the biggest decisions involved. And I think Michelle mentioned it earlier about transitions going out hard cut or staying in this. So I think that’s more than anything is what on this film dictated as well the “Where are we going?” We had a lot of non sequiturs in this film where all of a sudden we’re in China, we have no idea why we’re here. By the end of the scene, you’ll kind of know why we’re there, but for most of it, you’re just, “what?” So, but that was intentional and the director really was going for a non-traditional narrative.

Simone Smith, CCE:

I guess also, when you’re not cutting as much, or at least not obviously cutting within scenes, the ins and outs of those sections matter that much more, right?

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

Hugely. Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. If you’re going to do a cut and there’s only one every five minutes, it better be the right one.

Simone Smith, CCE:

And then one scene that comes to mind, just thinking of sound and how you work with sound. When it’s the scene in the car, in the rain and that windshield wiper is going, and that sort of repetitive sound just really ratchets up the tension. That-

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

Huge to do that. Because it was matching performance and wipers. It’s like, the performance of the actor was obviously the most important, but I was also trying to get it with the wiper coming in at the right time, so it’s like a heartbeat. And you know, couldn’t have the wiper wipe when it’s not supposed to and all that stuff. But typical, that’s our job. We have to make it work. But no, that scene was a lot of fun. And when do you reveal the character? When do you show the rain on the windshield? All that stuff, that was a lot of fun to do. It’s a great scene. Yeah.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Yeah, it’s really effective.

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

And everybody was sick. They shot for three days in the rain. They actually shot the first day with real rain, but then they realized they had to shoot it for three days, so then they had the rain machines and everyone got sick.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Oh, no.

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

This is why we love editing in a comfortable room.

Simone Smith, CCE:

For sure.

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

Yeah.

Simone Smith, CCE:

All right. And lastly, we’re going to take it over to Scarborough. Rich, do you want to tell us about your clip?

Rich Williamson:

Yeah. So the film revolves around three kids growing up in Scarborough who visit this drop in literacy center. And this specific clip is about Laura, who is the youngest. She comes from a very bad sort of situation. Her families… She’s been basically left by her mother at this bowling alley. Her father takes her in, who is not very capable of looking after her either. So at this literacy center, she kind of finds community and she finds someone in Ms. Heena who runs the center, who’s willing to look after her and see to teaching her certain things that maybe she hasn’t learned, so specifically she can’t read. So she’s teaching her how to read.

 

[clip plays]

Simone Smith, CCE:

All right. So Rich, do you want to talk a bit about how this scene came together?

Rich Williamson:

Yeah. Well, we were asked to show clips, and this was sort of a clip that we wanted- It’s hard to choose clips for this film because there’s so many characters. And so I just sort of put this one in there. There are three instances in the film where Ms. Heena and Laura have interactions, and you sort of watched this relationship sort of grow in that specific time, but you also see the tension of the father watching and him sort of disapproving, but not really saying anything, and it all comes to a head at this point. So it’s thinking about how to build that tension over those specific points, but also how much set up and pay off. How do you build her character, Laura, so that where she comes from and you know the situation and how dire it is, so that you can contrast that with the love and support that she finds in this space. So just trying to flesh out that contrast, but also looking at the performances, just trying to, less hinge on dialogue and more in looks like trying to just stay with moments, allow looks and gestures to express the feeling being expressed in the scene.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Right. Yeah. And I think, you know, have these moments of warmth like her and Ms. Heena. And just in general, this community that survival is, they work together and everyone’s helping each other really nicely…That camaraderie and that really leads to the, leads to their survival, and it’s that nugget of optimism in a pretty difficult film. So as co-director, DP and editor, how do you stay objective throughout this whole process?

Rich Williamson:

Oh.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Or do you?

Rich Williamson:

No, I don’t think I just have a really short term memory, so I kind of forget things and I’m like, oh, I see. When I shot it, I’m like, oh, that will work. I don’t know. I don’t know. I think it just comes from documentary… You’re used to just going out and shooting something and you come back and you just sort of piece it together. And I just sort of go with my gut. I tend not to get too bored of things, which is good. I know sometimes if I’m editing a film for somebody, I know if they’ve seen it a lot, sometimes they get bored of it, and so they want to change things. And I try to just remember how I felt the first time I watched it and just stick with that feeling. Not that you can’t go in and try to fuss with things and try to make it just that much tighter, but don’t go and rehaul something that on the first cut you were like, “oh, that’s just amazing. That’s just great,” because chances are that’s how everybody’s going to feel when they watch it. So that’s kind of…I don’t how I stay objective, but I just sort of trust that initial instinct.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Right. And with the sort of documentary style approach to filming, did you feel like you had enough of what you need? There was too much to choose from or varied scene to scene?

Rich Williamson:

I shoot a lot, almost to the point where I probably am pretty annoying. It’s usually like I’m shooting out the area and someone’s grabbing me saying, we need to get onto the next space, we need to go to the next shoot. And so I tend to shoot a lot just, and especially because this was our first film, I wanted to make sure that we had everything sometimes to the point where it was like, okay, we got it, we got it. So there were a lot of people there saying, we got it Rich. It’s good. I’ve been watching. And that’s why Shasha is so amazing, it’s like I have somebody there who is just sort of watching with me and she can just say to me, “we got it. I’ve been watching the objective that we were going for is there, so we don’t need to push it.”

But the difficulty is it’s just so much fun to play around with performance, and actors are so great when they’re flexible and they want to just try to add something new or just shake it up a bit. And that was the thing with our film, is that we really wanted to be very sort of loose and improvisational, and that can get to a place where you just get excited and you just want to try more and more and more. So yeah, I was never without footage for sure. I had lots to work with at the end of the day. Sometimes it was ridiculous. So I’d just be looking at your clips and be like, I should have just cut.

Jorge Weisz:

Those kids were amazing.

Rich Williamson:

Oh, thank you.

Jorge Weisz:

Amazing. Oh yeah, incredible.

Rich Williamson:

Thanks so much.

Simone Smith, CCE:

You touched upon a little bit earlier balancing all of these different plot lines, but how did you work through that? How much did the structure of the film change while you worked on it and who to focus on here or there?

Rich Williamson:

Right, yeah. I think we had a very open dialogue at the beginning between Josh and myself and Catherine that because it was documentary, we were focused on just keeping things loose. And that meant revision throughout the whole thing. Not just sticking true… Sticking true to the text, of course, but trying to just find the truth in the moment. And for actors, that’s great too, because sometimes it’s hard to say, sometimes when you write it down on the page, it’s not easy to say. And so having that sort of flexibility of going, “okay, this is what we’re going for.” I just say it in sort of your own, the way you would say it. So having that support from the beginning was really great. And I guess kind of unusual, right?. Not all writers are open to that sort of flexibility, so it was nice.

Simone Smith, CCE:

That’s great. Yeah. Well, we’re running low on time, but I have a bit of a corny question for you all, which is, what is it that gets you out of bed every day and right in front of that edit suite? Orlee, would you like to start?

Orlee:

Well, my joke answer is the dailies download button is a very exciting thing to press and see what’s coming. Maybe you can circle back to me after and I’ll give a serious answer.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Sure. Jorge?

Jorge Weisz:

I just love storytelling and I love, just love… going through the journey with these characters and solving problems and just making the story work. I just love to see… I just get very passionate with the projects that I choose to work and get involved with. So I want to go in with these characters into their journey. So it’s just gets me very excited. And it’s tough because after a while you’ve seen this so much, and the challenge is how can you keep yourself fresh and still get that buzz going? So that’s a challenge, but I don’t know. Still I go the next day and it still works. There’s some better days than others, but I don’t know, just, yeah, I think so.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Orlee. Are you ready?

Orlee:

I love making something from nothing. I think I love those moments when you’re like, “oh, we just really don’t have this piece with them.” Kind of the invigoration that you get when you find something that’s maybe totally out of the box. I think there’s so many points like that during the edit, and I feel like it’s what gets me going, for sure.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Arthur?

Arthur Tarnowski, CCE, ACE:

Echo, all of that. And I would say the storyteller thing I really like. And when my kids were little and I’d read them bedtime stories and say “what’s your work dad?” And I’d say “it’s the same as what we’re doing now,” making up stories or except, you know, you get paid for it and hopefully by the end of it they don’t fall asleep. But to be serious, getting up in the morning, I really don’t see it as a job job. It’s really like, I think for most of us, editing is a passion, and the whole idea of getting new dailies, it’s back in the day when you used to get your pictures printed at the photo lab and looking at the pictures of your vacation. It’s as exciting as looking at those photos and discovering a whole world you’re going to be in for the next few months.

And working with performances, and like you said before, making something that wasn’t maybe not quite there. And just by juxtaposing a few things together, all of a sudden it takes shape-life. And just sitting in a movie theater and with a packed crowd and watching a film at Tiff like Drunken Birds this past September, and discovering the film with the audience, because it’s almost like watching it for the first time when you see it with an audience and just it’s… I mean, I still feel like a kid when I see a movie I’ve cut on a big screen. It’s the privilege and the feeling that it’s like a movie movie. I made a movie movie, like a real movie. So yeah, I still pinch myself to do things like that. Yeah, it’s a lot of fun.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Rich?

Rich Williamson:

I like just putting two images together and it sort of moves along into creating a story. And every time we shoot something, I always come back going, “is this going to edit together?” I still do it. I still get freaked out about it, but when it finally does, I get this tingle. It’s like, “oh yes, it’s working.” And I think too, what’s awesome about it is when you go in with an objective of, this is what I’m expecting from, this is what I want the scene to be about, but the possibilities inherent in editing where you go like, oh, we could actually take it this way. And if you’re kind of loose enough with the shooting of it, then you have that possibility, or like some of you were saying, when you have footage from totally out of context from a different scene and you can kind of incorporate it into the scene that you’re working on, that that’s sort of just, the endless possibilities is so much fun.

Simone Smith, CCE:

For sure. And Michelle?

Michelle Szemberg, CCE:

I think for me it’s the connection. And I think editing has so many different ways you can connect. So connecting two shots together, two scenes together, performances, even just how a look connects with another look, and also the connection between an editor and a director, the editor and the assistant, the editor, and the co editor if you happen to do that. So I’ve always been, more recently especially, more selective of the projects I work on, and a lot of it has to do with the energy and the cutting room. So working with people that you really connect with creatively, personally, it makes a whole experience. I mean, when you ask the question of what gets you up in the morning and want to go to work, when you’re going to work with people that you like and you feel this sort of creative energy with, it’s such an exciting experience.

For me, assembling by myself is my least favorite part of the process because I think most editors will say that it can be frustrating, it can be isolating, it can be insecure, it can have a lot of doubt, especially when you’re working with new people because you don’t know what they expect of you. But then when you get into the room with the director and things start taking shape and coming to life, it’s just such a wonderful process. And then the last bit of connection is connecting the film to the audience. So I think when you can do that, connect your characters and connect those characters to the audience. It’s a really magical experience and we’re really lucky to do it.

Simone Smith, CCE:

Thanks. It’s so beautiful. All your answers, really. Well, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us about these films. Everyone, please go out and rent the film. See them in theaters, support Canadian Cinema and happy Edit Con 2022.

Speaker 9:

Thanks so much for joining us today. And a big thanks goes out to our panelists and moderator. A special thanks goes to the 2022 EditCon planning committee, Alison Dowler and Kim McTaggart, CCE. The main title Sound Design was created by Jane Tattersall, additional ADR recording by Andrea Rush. Original music created by Chad Blaine and Soundstr. This episode was mixed and mastered by Tony Bao. The CCE is proud to support Hire BIPOC. Hire BIPOC is the definitive and ubiquitous industry-wide roster of Canadian BIPOC creatives and crew working in screen-based industries. Check out hirebipoc.ca to hire your next group or create a profile and get hired.

Speaker 10:

The CCE is a non-profit organization with the goal of bettering the art and science of picture editing. If you wish to become a CCE member, please visit our website, www.cceeditors.ca. Join our great community of Canadian editors for more related info.

PART 4 OF 4 ENDS [01:45:51]

Abonnez-vous là où vous écoutez vos balados

Que voulez-vous entendre sur L'art du montage?

Veuillez nous envoyer un courriel en mentionnant les sujets que vous aimeriez que nous abordions, ou les monteurs.euses dont vous aimeriez entendre parler, à :

Crédits

Un grand Merci à

Kim McTaggart, CCE

Alison Dowler

Jason Biron

Hosted and Produced by

Sarah Taylor

Design sonore du générique d'ouverture

Jane Tattersall

ADR Recording by

Andrea Rusch

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Commandité par

Blackmagic Design

Catégories
L'art du montage

Épisode 013: Rencontre avec Dominique Champagne

LADM Episode13 Dominique Champagne

Épisode 13: Rencontre avec Dominique Champagne

Cet épisode est commandité par MELS STUDIOS

Pour ouvrir la nouvelle saison, nous avons le privilège de recevoir une monteuse chevronnée : Dominique Champagne.

Dominique Champagne and Catherine Legault at MELS Studio
Photo credit : François Pecard

Dominique has edited feature films, documentaries, and it is really thanks to her work in TV series that she has made a name for herself, notably with SHARP OBJECTS, where she collaborated with Jean-Marc Vallé, but also with Sophie Deraspe, on the series DARK SOUL (BÊTE NOIRE) and MOTEL PARADIS. Our host, Catherine Legault, invites you to discover the behind-the-scenes of Dominique’s career, and maybe she’ll even share some editing tips with us.

 Bonne écoute!

 

Sélection des derniers projets de Dominique

3 Vidéos

À écouter ici !

Abonnez-vous là où vous écoutez vos balados

Que voulez-vous entendre sur L'art du montage?

Veuillez nous envoyer un courriel en mentionnant les sujets que vous aimeriez que nous abordions, ou les monteurs.euses dont vous aimeriez entendre parler, à :

Crédits

Un grand Merci à

Dominique Champagne

Catherine Legault

François Pecard

Les Studios MELS

Maud Le Chevallier

Audrey Sylvestre

Animatrice

Catherine Legault

Montage

Pauline Decroix

Design sonore du générique d'ouverture

Jane Tattersall, adapté en version française par Pauline Decroix

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Musique offerte par

Commandité par

Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 070: In Conversation with Shaun Rykiss & Bretten Hannam of Wildhood

The Editors Cut - Episode 070- In Conversation with Shaun Rykiss & Bretten Hannam of Wildhood

Episode 070 - In Conversation with Shaun Rykiss & Bretten Hannam of Wildhood

Today’s episode is the panel that took place virtually on April 11th 2022 - In Conversation with Shaun Rykiss and Bretten Hannam on the film WILDHOOD.

The episode was generously sponsored by Integral Artists, IATSE 891 and AQTIS 514. 

Today’s episode is the panel that took place virtually on April 11th 2022 – In Conversation with Shaun Rykiss et Bretten Hannam on the film WILDHOOD.

Shaun Rykiss and director Bretten Hannam discuss their approach to bringing one of this year’s most acclaimed films, WILDHOOD, to the big screen. This panel was moderated by Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE.

WILDHOOD is a film about two brothers who embark on a journey to find their birth mother after their abusive father had lied for years about her whereabouts; along the way, they reconnect with their indigenous heritage and make a new friend.

The Editor's Cut - Episode 070 - In Conversation with Shaun Rykiss and Bretten Hannam of WILDHOOD

Shaun Rykiss

Shaun Rykiss is an award-winning film and television editor based in Toronto, Canada. He is a graduate of Vancouver Film School and an alumnus of Norman Jewison’s Canadian Film Centre Editor’s Lab. Rykiss served as supervising editor for five television docuseries including YUKON HARVEST, which is nominated for the 2022 Canadian Screen Awards for Best Factual Series and Best Editing, Factual. He has since transitioned into scripted film and series. Rykiss’s work on the digital series, I AM SYD STONE, garnered him the 2021 Canadian Cinema Editors award for Best Editing in Web Based Series. His first two feature films, WILDHOOD (dir. Bretten Hannam) and LEARN TO SWIM (dir. Thyrone Tommy), both had their world premieres at the 2021 Toronto International Film Festival, and are collectively nominated for eight 2022 Canadian Screen Awards.

The Editor's Cut - Episode 070 - In Conversation with Shaun Rykiss and Bretten Hannam of WILDHOOD

Bretten Hannam

Bretten Hannam is a Two-Spirit L’nu filmmaker living in Kespukwitk, L’nuekati (Nova Scotia) where they were raised. Their films deal with themes of community, culture, and language with a focus on Two-Spirit and LGBTQ+ identity. They wrote and directed NORTH MOUNTAIN, a Two-Spirit thriller that won Best Original Score at the Atlantic Film Festival and the Screen Nova Scotia Award for Best Feature. They also wrote/directed the short film WILDFIRE which premiered at BFI Flare and went on to play at Frameline LGBT Film Festival, Vancouver International Film Festival, ImagineNative, and Inside Out LGBT Film Festival. Recently, they wrote and directed WILDHOOD, the feature version of the short WILDFIRE, which premiered at TIFF 2021. Bretten is a Fellow of the Praxis Centre for Screenwriters, Outfest Screenwriting Lab, Whistler’s Indigenous Filmmaker Fellowship, and the CFC Screenwriter’s Lab.

À écouter ici !

The Editor’s Cut – Episode 070 – “In Conversation with Shaun Rykiss & Bretten Hannam of Wildhood”

Sarah Taylor:
Today’s episode was sponsored by integral artists – IATSE 891 and AQTIS 514.
Shaun Rykiss:
You know you can often use temp music as a crutch to convey emotion and to set up the tone feel of the scene and as with everything else in this film, with the material, with the writing, you know it’s very organic and it’s freeform and it’s a bunch of boys wandering through the woods. And it required musically a similar feeling and was very hard to temp for, for one thing. But also I think the floaters had a natural rhythm that we wanted to abide by. So I’m glad we cut it without, because by the time we did get the composer on board it just was a natural fit.
Sarah Taylor:
Hello and welcome to The Editor’s Cut. I’m your host Sarah Taylor. We would like to point out that the lands on which we have created this podcast and that many of you may be listening to us from are part of ancestral territory. It is important for all of us to deeply acknowledge that we are on ancestral territory that has long served as a place where indigenous peoples have lived, met, and interacted. We honor, respect, and recognize these nations that have never relinquished their rights or sovereign authority over the lands and waters on which we stand today. We encourage you to reflect on the history of the land, the rich culture, the many contributions and the concerns that impact indigenous individuals and communities. Land acknowledgements are the start to a deeper action.
Today’s episode is the panel that took place virtually on April 11th, 2022. In conversation with Shaun Rykiss and Bretten Hannam on the film Wildhood. Shaun and director Bretten discuss their approach to bring one of this year’s most acclaimed films, Wildhood, to the big screen. Wildhood is about two brothers who embark on a journey to find their birth mother after their abusive father had lied for years about their whereabouts. Along the way they reconnect with their indigenous heritage and make a new friend. This panel was moderated by Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE.

Speaker 4:
And action.
Speaker 5:
This is The Editor’s Cut.
Speaker 6:
A CCE podcast.
Speaker 5:
Exploring.
Speaker 4:
Exploring.
Speaker 6:
Exploring.
Speaker 5:
The art.
Speaker 6:
Of picture editing.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Thanks everyone for joining us, and Shaun and Brett. I’m located in Mi’gma’gi, the ancestral unseated territory of the Mi’kmaq people and we acknowledge them as the past, present, and future caregivers of our land.
So yes, I’d like to welcome Brett Hannam, who is also here in Nova Scotia, and Shaun who is in Toronto right now. Shaun Rykiss is the editor of Wildhood, directed, written, and produced by Brett Hannam. The film has been making the festival circuit including TIFF Vancouver and won, I think just about every award here at the Atlantic Film Festival. You laugh, but it’s true. It was nominated for six CSA awards and did win for best supporting actor for Joshua Odjick who plays Pasmay.
Brett, a very wise man once told me that any award for a film is an award for the writer. So there you go. And also when it’s for performance, I always think that the editor owns a little piece of that award too. So congratulations to you both.
Bretten Hannam:
Thank you.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Shaun, before we get into the film, I just wanted to ask you, as an editor, I’m always interested in other editor’s journey, how they came to be sitting in front of their editing suite. So, what’s your journey and how did you become an editor, and why editing?
Shaun Rykiss:
The how is it starts with just you know having fun with editing software. Growing up, you know I remember it’s just…I remember, for example, taking some of my favorite clips when I was a teenager from movies, like action scenes like Lord of the Rings and stuff like that and Star Wars. And like just with Windows Movie Maker, editing my favorite rock music or that sort of thing to the scene, just to like have fun with it. That was the first memory I have of really editing anything. That and school projects, that sort of thing.
But that all came to a head when after going through university, I initially studied psychology and then transitioned out of that when I got my degree into film studies, which eventually led me to and that was in Winnipeg where I’m from originally. That led me to go to Vancouver Film School where I attended Vancouver Film School for 12 months. It was a great intensive program where we got to dip our toes into kind of every different type of discipline. Made a lot of short films while I was there and just continued to realize how much I love editing.
I love the craft of post production, of taking footage and making something of it, making something out of it that you didn’t expect and that led me to my first job as an editor, which was working for a…aside from editing short films and that sort of thing, I was working for a bit of a gorilla operation in Vancouver, editing unscripted television and docuseries, that sort of thing.
That started in that producer’s apartments and a bunch of editors in the different corners of his living room. And eventually that spawned into multiple TV series over the course of my time involved, four or five years, and we got an office. And that resulted in me getting to wear a lot of hats because as one of the earlier editors involved in the studio, as we grew, I got to take on more responsibility, got to dip my toe into post-production supervision as well as eventually series editing as well as the actual editing of the episodes.
But all things considered, I missed scripted storytelling. I had edited short films here and there, music videos, that sort of thing intermittently…but I always got into film because of script storytelling. So in trying to pursue that further, that led me to discover the Canadian Film Center, which is based in Toronto. Happened to apply back in 2016, got accepted and decided to make the move to Toronto, both to attend the program and to expand my career. And so that’s where I met a lot of my fellow filmmakers based in Toronto, one which is Gharrett Patrick Paon, who is the producer on Wildhood. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Is that how you were led to Brett? And Brett, I know that there is this feature film lived as a short film first called Wildfire, which is a lovely little short and even though it’s quite different having to be a short, I love how there’s scenes that are moments in it that are just directly into the feature film. But I know you edited that, Shaun, so is that how you two came together?
Shaun Rykiss:
Yeah, 100%. As I recall, Gharrett had sent me an early version…early cut of Wildfire. Brett, you had edited the first rough cut, right?
Bretten Hannam:
Yeah.
Shaun Rykiss:
And Garrett had sent it to me just for some notes and I guess he liked what I had to say because then he followed up by asking if I’d be willing to take a crack at it, obviously with Brett’s permission. And that led us to building our relationship and edited Wildfire as you now see it and on we went.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Okay. Well then on to Wildhood. First of all, well, you know I’m a huge fan of the film. I think it’s an absolutely beautiful film. I’ve watched it twice, the first time as a viewer, always the best way to view a film, just as a viewer. The second time I viewed it as an editor. And I know I was telling you I felt when I was watching it that there was probably a lot more to this film that didn’t make the film. And I say that not feeling that it was too long or that there were things…that felt things were missing, just the nature of the film felt like you probably had a lot of material. So, can you tell me about that? Kind of what you were dealing with, how much you had to work with?
Shaun Rykiss:
A lot of content. I was editing in Toronto while they were shooting in Nova Scotia, I was editing about a day or two behind. And by the time we had an assembly cut put together soon after they finished production, the initial assembly cut was three hours and 12 minutes.So…and that was pure content. Obviously there’s always room to trim and tighten things up, but overall compared to the one hour and 40-minute final film, there was a lot of extra, like I said, content and material that could have ended up in the film. So lots to work with, which was in the end such a blessing because it allowed us to make a lot of you know…play with a lot, try different things and try to tell the most focused story that we ended up with.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
So Brett, in doing that, in sculpting down the film, what was your guiding principles in deciding what stays and what goes?
Bretten Hannam:
Well, I mean, it’s always a discussion. Part of it was that there’s the macro part and the micro part, but ultimately it was, is this true to the story or the spine of the story is there and the flow and shape of the story? So when you make your assembly, it’s like a hodgepodge and you hope there’s something in there. And then as we were going along, it was like, let’s try this. We’d talk about the scenes and what was in there and what we’d include and we’d watch it. I think in the early days we weren’t doing livestream edits. It was more like Shaun would do a bunch of stuff…we’d talk, Shaun would make a bunch of cuts, he’d send them to me, I would watch them and then we’d get back together. This was really kind of a longer process, but it was just really honestly being about like, this scene doesn’t feel like it wants to be there or it feels like we want to move to this place faster, or we get into the story faster, or we want to stay with this character here or that character there.
So part of it is maybe instinct and then saying, is this the best scene or the best way the scene can be, or the best place for this scene for the story as we’re kind of finding the shape of the story again in the editing phase. So it’s a collaboration, primarily between Shaun and I, and then we’d get feedback from our producing team and other people as well and then decide what to ignore. No. But the great thing about editing is you can try out a lot of stuff. So we would try stuff and I’m like, oh no, totally, that doesn’t work okay. Or like, oh, that thing I didn’t think would work or we didn’t think would work is not a bad idea. So it was an interesting living process.
Shaun Rykiss:
Yeah, especially having had to do it remotely because again, Brett is based in Nova Scotia, I’m in Toronto and this happened, I think Wildhood was the first production that shot in the pandemic. Didn’t it? In the East Coast.
Bretten Hannam:
Yeah.
Shaun Rykiss:
So, we were all trying to kinda figure out the best possible way to do this. Initially before COVID really hit, we planned to fly Brett in to work with me at least for week at a time…weeks at a time. And then when everything happened, the outbreak got a little out of hand, then we were like, okay, let’s try pushing this remote thing and see how far it takes us. So, finding that rhythm was interesting early on, but we definitely, especially as Brett alluded to you, once we started live editing and figured out a system for that, it had a natural flow to it.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
And it’s certainly something we’re all getting used to. I know it’s probably harder with feature film to do it remotely in the notes way, but in television, wow, sometimes you can go whole season without seeing your showrunner. Now it’s kind of-
Shaun Rykiss:
Here’s the funny thing about that though is last year, including Wildhood, I cut three feature films and I did all of them remotely. I didn’t sit one day in the edit room with …
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Wow.
Shaun Rykiss:
So I don’t know how to cut film.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
And to get into a techie question, do you deal, in those three cases, for instance, mostly with notes or do you do any live over the airwaves type editing?
Shaun Rykiss:
Mostly live.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Oh really?
Shaun Rykiss:
And that was partially a workflow that was developed through Wildhood. I like to do a combo between, I use Frame.io as a service because I just find it’s a great way for-
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
It’s fabulous.
Shaun Rykiss:
It’s just a really polished experience and it’s easy for…once you get the directors and the producers acclimatized to it because they’re not all initially. Actually that’s a good point too, just to go on a tangent quickly because one of the earliest conversations Brett and I had was trying to figure out the best way to literally communicate with each other creatively. And I remember we had to do a little bit of back and forth with Frame.io to figure out what the best use of language was. And I remember the key to it, for me at least, was when we agreed like, okay, Brett, just when you’re typing notes on Frame.io, say whatever’s on your mind. Literally just, even if it’s a paragraph or an essay, just type it as it’s coming out of your brain.
And for me that’s always essential because it’s sitting in a room, you’re going to get all those kind of intangible thoughts that you then take. And as an editor especially, you try to then translate into what ends up in the timeline. I love…I’m an editor who loves information. Give me more, give me as much as possible and then I’ll filter that down and ask a lot of questions. So that philosophy kind of unlocked, at least for me, I don’t know about you, Brett, but a productive flow of communication. And then to get back to the initial question, Kim, once we got that settled up with Frame.io, and basically we would use Frame.io on earlier cuts like Brett said. And then once we decided to get into the fine-tuning, then we would hop onto a live session.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Right
Shaun Rykiss:
And with the live sessions, the workflow I use is through a chat app called Discord, which was a gaming platform initially. So it has a streaming function. And just experimenting with it, you could stream 720 P pretty smoothly as long as you have a decent internet connection. And it took a little messing around with because we’d have to set up a separate communication call, whether it’s on a phone call or FaceTime or whatever to handle communication and then I would stream both my video and picture from my system through Discord.
So there’s a lot of muting and unmuting yourself to make sure that during playback you’re not getting too much feedback, but you find a rhythm and you get used to it and you get used to each other’s rhythms and figure it out. So that’s how I’ve been editing these films. That’s how we learned how to edit on Wildhood.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
All right, well why don’t we move to our first clip. We’re going to start at the beginning. This is the intro to the film, of course being one of the most important parts of your film is your intro to your film.
[clip plays]
Shaun Rykiss:
Again, that’s the clip as it appears in the final film. What we’re going to show next is a rough cut version of it that included additional content that you’ll see sets up the film in a little bit of a different way.

[clip plays]

Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
So quite a difference. That’s some important decisions to make. I mean that is your opening scene, setting your character, setting your tone, letting us know what we’re going to be seeing. So how did you come about with what you did?
Shaun Rykiss:
The first thing that I think is worth mentioning is again, what the differences do to the film. Obviously what we landed on is quite a bit more concise and moves quite a bit faster and that’s always something that you’re conscious of, it’s certainly something that came up a lot as we got into the later phases of the editing is…how can we get the ball rolling quicker?…How can we get the boys on the road quicker?…And that’s not always…it sounds like a bit of a rote note because you’re like, well what if we don’t want to get them on the road quicker? What if we just want to enjoy the long part of the journey? But there is always value in getting the first 10, 15 minutes of your film moving quickly, so that’s always something to be conscious of.
That being said, one thing, Brett probably hasn’t seen this in a long time and certainly hasn’t seen this with music, this is something I tossed in at the end in preparation for this because we cut it without music initially. And that’s some of the final music in the film that you hear in there that I added in. There’s a lot of interesting character notes in the extended version that set up some things and set up the world that we either don’t quite get to in the final film or we do in other ways.
And so that’s something else that we’re always asking ourselves is in trying to condense the start of the film, are there ways to introduce these elements elsewhere in the film? Do we have to do it here? Can we find ways to drip feed that information throughout? So those are some of the thoughts that went into the different types of things that got cut. Brett, any thoughts on specifics about some of that extra content?
Bretten Hannam:
Super weird to see it with music, that’s all.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Well, one thing is we learn that he is gay there, or most likely gay, which I’m not sure exactly where we learn that now.
Bretten Hannam:
It depends on what you’re cued into. But yeah, so there’s that. We talked about centering things more on Link’s identity and how he sees the world and interacts with the world and that scene is kind of more a view, and oppression maybe from outside. A force from outside the world pressing in on him and setting up that he’s at odds with also his environment, which kind of became a double beat in a way because his father does all that anyway.
So it became one of those things where…are we doing this in other places?…and then do we need this…and then let’s try it without it and then oh, we don’t need this or maybe we do…no, we don’t. So that’s kind of…at least part of me remembers that conversation. And then the whole dirt bike thing, we didn’t lose too much by not having the dirt bike in, though I love the dirt bike. I love it all. All the stuff that we cut was not like, this is terrible, we have to cut it. It was more like, is this the way we want to go or is this giving us what we need at this point? Early on I think we take a little bit of time with the hair dying scene, the beginning, and then we took time with the bullies and then we took time with the dip, then we took time with the paint and it’s like we took a lot of time.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
One thing that I found interesting too is when you have so much material that you have to shake down and you’re in the middle of a pandemic is how important it is to show people and get feedback as you’re cutting and when you get really into the thick of it, you start to lose your objectivity and all of that sort of stuff. So who did you rely on? Did you have a whole group of people who you would send and save the certain cuts for some people? Or how did you deal with it?
Shaun Rykiss:
Yeah. Obviously our internal team to start, which was us plus our three producers, Gharrett, Julie, and Damon. And they were great about giving us the space to do the work and get cuts prepared to the point that we were comfortable with them and then we would have intermittent kind of checkpoint reviews with them. And then once we, I can’t remember what phase exactly, but definitely later in the rough cut is when we first started to show people. And I think it was just general colleagues within and without the industry of different focuses and disciplines. Certainly I have my gang of editors who I like to show things to and get their perspective and then Brett and the rest of the team I’m sure have their own…their different disciplines.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Did you have any big surprises in that process?
Shaun Rykiss:
I don’t remember there being too many big surprises. The one major surprise we kept coming up against, which led to a huge change in our film, was how much people didn’t need to see as much of the dad, of Arvin and how comfortable people were with the idea of because as we’ll probably talk about at some point there was a lot more of Arvin throughout the film. And that’s definitely something that I remember coming up in multiple sessions was people being like, “I get it, he’s an asshole, he’s oppressive, he’s evoking or imposing these worldviews on Link.” People were getting that right from literally the first frame of seeing him and subsequent scenes. So that made it a lot more comfortable to make some heavy edits, heavy cut downs, which took out a lot of time, which is great.
Bretten Hannam:
We got pretty bold at one point. It was just like, let’s make these deep cuts and just see what happens, and you know, because, well, we can always undo.
Shaun Rykiss:
Yeah.
Bretten Hannam:
So I think Shaun went through…we had divided the film into reels, so went through and like made these deep cuts and then it was like, let’s watch it. And it’s like, oh, actually these deep cuts are pretty on the money.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Most of that was with Arvin.
Bretten Hannam:
Yeah and some of its whole side adventures inside with the characters. Like entire big scenes that are just…they change maybe the perception of the characters, or it kind of feels like they’re on a journey and then they kind of went over here and they hung out for a while and then they kept going like it loses momentum.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Right.
Bretten Hannam:
So those were kind of like we were pretty merciless. Which is hard to do, but you find a way.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
And did you feel the loss of anything in losing Arvin? I mean he was chasing them, right? And coming upon them every now and then kind of thing?
Bretten Hannam:
Well…part of it is…yeah. I mean it’s just a facet that we don’t get to experience with the way the story is now. But did we need it? I don’t think we did. Arvin has a bit more character development. Right? He’s not just a two-dimensional character. There’s more nuance. He doesn’t do like a 180 degree change at the end. He’s just kind of like maybe three degree change. He’s slightly less of an asshole, but he’s still an asshole. But there are confrontations that happened between him and Link where Link is more asserting his identity and asserting his personhood, I guess, and getting in shouting matches and running through corn fields. I mean I miss those things, but they are kind of…Shaun, we talked about it being like you know those scenes, even though they’re not there, they were instrumental to the scenes that come after them. Right? We still build…the performances build on those things, I think that’s one of the things that makes the film seem like it has a bigger life or world behind it, something like that.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Well I was actually quite surprised when you told me he was initially all through it, which is good. I mean it felt totally organic without, so…
Bretten Hannam:
That was thanks to some little wizard tricks that Shaun did.
Shaun Rykiss:
Well, but again, it comes down to the advantage of having so much footage and so much content. You guys shot for, what, 30 days out in the hot summer in Nova Scotia. And I don’t know…I couldn’t tell you…I can’t remember exactly how much footage it was, but again, there was a three hour and 12 minute assembly. It gave us the flexibility to find creative ways to condense and lift chunks of scenes out so that we could merge others. And without all that footage, I don’t know if we could…I think we would’ve been locked into a lot more tough decisions,so…
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Right. All right, well let’s move on to another clip.

[clip plays]

Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Here’s, I guess, one example of showing your audience and getting some feedback. So why don’t you tell us about this scene and how it came about.
Shaun Rykiss:
The first sequence rather when he gets out of the car and they’re walking off, that was all written, shot, and designed as a beautiful water, that works great. But then going into the next scene, which is a talk at a campfire, we felt like…in putting together the assembly and showing it to the internal team that there wasn’t quite enough tension at that point. Clearly you can tell by Link’s body language at this point, things are tense between him and Pasmay. Link’s still trying to make these tough decisions to keep him and Travis safe and going from that directly into the campfire scene, they got a little too cozy too quickly. There’s a little bit too much…the tension was lost a bit, whereas in acknowledging that, I believe it was our producer Gharrett who came up with a great idea during production while they were still shooting to get this purple sky scene, which was an example of trying to generate a little bit of extra tension in the group dynamic, create some separation between Link and Travis and Pasmay and just show that they weren’t quite connecting yet. There was room to grow there and through some great blocking and obviously a gorgeous setting, I think it accomplishes that in three or four shots, showing them collecting together. Link kind of throwing a wary glance over at Pasmay with almost no dialogue, but sometimes that’s enough to just help sell that type of tension, so, yeah.
Bretten Hannam:
Plus the hiccups.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Yeah, this was the first time I noticed the hiccups.
Shaun Rykiss:
That’s part of the thing that makes that scene work so well too is that despite the tension, which is there, you have Travis. First of all, the relationship between Link and Travis is so clear that older/younger brother relationship where Link’s trying to help Travis in his own way and Travis is like, “No, leave me alone. I got it. I’m big enough, I can do it.” Which is already great. And then the whole time he’s hiccuping while he is trying to be this big strong man. And then that goofy little thing that he does holding the branches, trying to carry them over, it just adds that extra bit of genuineness that you can only get by having a kid actor involved. So credit to Avery for that.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
And it really shows too how beautifully shot this film is. You did a fabulous job. All right, why don’t we go to… I love this scene, the first dance.

[clip plays]

Shaun Rykiss:
You know, it’s always interesting when you get a scene that is mostly silence and body language in addition to having a little bit of action because in terms of setting up the various checkpoints that you have, the beats and the blocking that you want to hit, you have to be a little bit…usually with dialogue you have those key lines that you’re building towards and that you’re wrapping the edit around, and with this it was more about glances and it was more about gestures. So, thankfully there was some beautiful blocking that really highlighted those things.
But I do remember, one of my earlier cuts, didn’t quite have a shape that we ended up with. It was a little bit more dry, it kind of got to the dance a lot quicker. And when Brett and I finally got digging into it, they really spent a lot of time with me developing that shape. And one thing we talked about a lot was the intimacy of the moments, and intimacy not just between the two of them, but for Pasmay alone at this moment, at this time of day when everyone else is asleep. Brett, you can speak more to this, but the interesting dynamic of Link accidentally invading that. And then the reaction that they have to that moment and obviously what spurs from that.
Building up to the moment where they come together was an interesting process of slowly stretching out moments and figuring out, okay, we should cut back to Link one extra time to make sure that we’re seeing his processing of what he’s observing and give Pasmay time to take that in, digest and figure out how he wants to proceed.
Bretten Hannam:
Yeah, I mean that’s kind of how the discussion evolved. Talking about what the moment is or what the emotional moment is between the characters and what’s going on. So you have these two that have been coming along, well and Travis, he’s sleeping. But they’re slowly getting closer throughout this time. And this is a private moment for Pasmay, a prayer. You can’t quite hear it, but there’s a prayer that he says in Mi’kmaq before. As Link is waking up, he kind of hears it and then he’s practicing his dance. And it’s not just dance moves that anyone is practicing at home, dancing is a sacred thing, a special thing.
So it’s quiet, he’s with these others that aren’t really…he’s not super close, but they’re beginning to get there and he’s interrupted and then it’s a moment where you can choose to be like, okay, well I’m not going to do this right now, or I could proceed and just ignore them. But instead the choice that Pasmay makes is to invite Link into the moment, into the space. So they’ve crossed that threshold and that’s that hand extending and being pulled up and then passing on this knowledge, this tradition and reconnecting.
So they’re both getting different things out of what’s going on, and we’re very with them in the moment too. And then the Travis comment and the rebuke I think is always interesting to watch or experience with an audience because most of them are in that moment laughing because Travis is…that’s the kind of kid he is. Right? He’s kind of off the cuff, “You look like a douchebag.” And I said, oh, that’s a funny thing. Like, oh, he’s just a jerky little kid or whatever.
Shaun Rykiss:
Without fail that moment has gotten a laugh in every screening. Whether it was notes that we got where people would kind of live comments on their thoughts, they would always comment that they found that funny at first, or witnessing it with audiences like Brett’s saying. People always laugh. And then it’s always interesting seeing the tension that fills the room afterward when you hear Pasmay’s reaction.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
And also to see the look on Travis’s face is just almost heartbreaking.
Bretten Hannam:
But that’s a teachable moment too. Those are teachings as well. We teach in many different ways. And so for Travis, they’re all learning something in that scene. It’s one of the reasons it’s a great scene. And then at the end when we see his face like that, he probably also feels guilt and shame and all sorts of things. But then we go, I think in the end of that clip there’s a little bit of the next one, which is they’re walking but Link’s not quite with them and that tension and separation is something I think that you feel when you watch it because that moment is set up like that.
Shaun Rykiss:
And that took a lot of extra work because I remember we had to…that footage of them walking, we had a bunch of different footage of that same kind of sequence of events, from different angles, from different times of day and it took a while to get the right amount of it, the right shot composition, just to make sure that you lived in that moment for the right amount of time, but also didn’t get too bogged down by it. That was actually an interesting…it required an amount of extra work compared to it could have just been one shot and then you’re done. I remember we had to go back to it quite a few times to make sure that it felt right.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
And at the beginning of that scene, we saw one of the flashbacks. Can you talk a bit about that, how you decided where to put those in the film and at what moments and show how much? And were they unscripted or did that all kind of get moved and created in the editing suite?
Shaun Rykiss:
Yeah. Brett, do you remember if this one was in the script at this point? I actually don’t recall.
Bretten Hannam:
I think they’re more or less where they go in so far as where they are. But then what they are is something that’s shaped more by the shooting, how we ended up shooting and approaching the moments and then the editing of them, the shaping of them into the story. Some of them are a lot quicker than I imagined, and there’s different motivations for when we were talking about how we’re going to use them and build them. Really, there’s an arc to them in a way. At the very beginning it’s kind of more vague, not in focus, it’s not quite clear. It’s more fragments, working up to a bit of clarity, a bit more, what’s the word? Intercutting with the real world. So back and forth to a more clear memory kind of at the end. Those were shaped as we went. Did we do a pass that was only memory?
Shaun Rykiss:
We may have. Yeah, I think during the final cut, you’re right. I think we had at least had a pass as we were working through the film, we’re like, let’s make sure we’re keeping track of flashbacks specifically and see if there’s ways to shape it. Because as Brett said, there was an arc to the flashbacks. I think total there’s probably, well, there’s definitely less than 10 shots of flashback throughout the film, maybe somewhere closer to eight. But in addition to the vagueness and the more surrealist portrayal of flashbacks earlier on versus the more grounded portrayal later on.
We also talked a lot about how…because every flashback sequence, because as Brett said, they were scripted and they were shot for those moments. There was quite a bit of footage for each one, and we talked early on about how much to show. Do we develop these into a little bit more substantial two or three shot series/sequences or do we keep them more minimal and make them more moments in time?
And that’s essentially what we landed on was these are flashes of thoughts that Link is experiencing at every given point that we see…we witness them in the film. And I remember we really realized in experimenting that that was the best way to go because it felt the most real and the most tangible. It felt the most relatable because that’s how memories come to us. Right? They’re often not full-fledged sequence of events. Even dreams, they’re constantly…you’re flashing between things that are changing and ebbing and flowing. And we wanted to make sure that the flashbacks felt that way, especially because Link’s memories are…they’re deconstructed, they’re not fully formed. And so we wanted to make sure that the audience was with Link in that same feeling of disconnection.
Bretten Hannam:
I think one of my favorite uses of that is actually it’s in the house, and it just comes at…there’s a scene that’s more of a flashback and then we kind of move away from it. But then when it’s in the emotional space, where it is called for a flashback comes up for, what’s that shot of Sarah’s face completely out of focus, very quick.
Shaun Rykiss:
Her from the blurry perspective, POV perspective of young Link as an infant and her doing a peekaboo or something and it’s just for an instance and it’s right at the peak of a moment of music, but that’s how memories hit us. It’s like you see something or you smell something or taste something and suddenly you just get that flash, that flicker of, wow, where am I for a second? And we really tried to embrace that as much as we could throughout the film.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
I’m just curious, what was your schedule like? How many weeks did you have to edit this film?
Shaun Rykiss:
We took our time, it was about a seven-
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
No shame in that.
Shaun Rykiss:
…seven or eight month edit.
Bretten Hannam:
Yeah.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Oh wow. That’s fabulous.
Shaun Rykiss:
Yeah, I don’t think that was intended initially, but that speaks to the patience and the quality of our team. They really…our producers really gave us the time and the space to play and experiment. And when we sent out the cuts for feedback, we would take a little bit of time off and let it digest and we wouldn’t rush back into it. I was so grateful for that experience because again, it was my first feature film. And not having to rush it and feel rushed in getting it done really allowed us to do things like cut an hour and a half of the film.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
And breaks. I mean to have a break in the middle of a feature film edit is…that’s the best.
Shaun Rykiss:
Because I’ve had it the other way now. And yeah, you don’t want to feel rushed in the decision-making. Sometimes it’s good. Sometimes it’s good to have a sense of urgency and you know you need to get a scene done and you will focus on what’s required of that scene. But especially with a feature film, you need to give it time to breathe and tell you what it is because it’s not most of the time what you wrote. Right, Brett?
Bretten Hannam:
Yeah.
Shaun Rykiss:
And you need to be willing to listen to what the footage tells you, what production gave you, what the decisions of all of the other filmmakers who became involved, what they provided and what the performers provided. To rush a film is often the worst thing you can do.

Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
And speaking of that, surprises, did any of the actors give you something really surprising, Brett? Or are they pretty much as you had on the page? Or did something surprising come on the floor with your actors?
Bretten Hannam:
There was always surprises with them. We were doing two weeks of quarantine at the time, so you have no rehearsal time or you have one day of rehearsal time. I’m like, that’s terrible. And they can’t rehearse over Zoom because who could ever do that? So then they’re like, “No, we’re doing it every day. And we had an acting coach.” So every day they were rehearsing, and then I would be working with them and they would go away and do some work and they’d be like, “Here’s what we found or what we are working on.”
And so there was a good relationship there as well of, oh, okay, I can see clearer. This is the way things are going naturally and this is the way I’m dictating things. So it would make a better story if I let go of that thing and I follow what’s going on here, keeping things kind of on track, more or less. And then on the day, because they’re so in the characters and into the material, there were several scenes that were…people were, not just me I think, but very moved by or upset by or slightly traumatized by.
So there was always that willingness to be vulnerable and to go to those places, I think. And that’s what brings out those surprises. And we did some unscripted stuff too. I wish we had more time to do unscripted stuff because it’s super fun and you never know what you’re going to get. Sometimes you get half an hour of like…they’re kicking cans and nothing’s going on, and then other times there’s loon calls and great material.
So then it was looking all over all that stuff with Shaun and being like, okay, what do we have? And let’s find those real moments. I think at one point in the script, Link and Travis are going through a junkyard and Link is going to chase him with grease on his hand or something, and he trips, he falls because his pants are caught up in something. But that was just a thing that happened. And so it was like, oh, let’s find those things and put them as many as we can, if it makes sense, into the story.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Yeah you can feel those in the montages. I mean they feel almost documentary-like, they definitely feel real, yeah like not something you would script, so that’s-
Bretten Hannam:
Yeah it was kind of looking for those magical things and then being like, let’s keep those in the edit, just to build that sense of the world and that it was happening and not scripted and away from the script, far away from the script.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
It’s nice that you could take that time on the set as well as in the edit suite to get that sort of stuff because it really did create magic in your film.

Bretten Hannam:
Yeah, it was one thing that we talked about going through the process and editing was like, from now on when I’m shooting, I’m going to do at the end, just a take that’s all silent. Just do it all in looks, do it all in motion and movement because there’s so much of that that is so powerful when you get into the editing stages about, well, Shaun, you’re stealing little kind of bits and things here and there for looks and stuff. It’s like, wow, if we did that take, it’s just a take at the end of takes. If there’s time to do that, then you have this extra little bit of icing that you can be like, oh, we want a little sweet spot here and there.
Shaun Rykiss:
Yeah, further to that point too, that was one of the earliest conversations Brett and I had. Whenever I start on a project I always like to talk to the director about just their vision. Based on the script and based on your experience shooting, tell me how feel, how this film feels to you. Tell me, obviously references and stuff are great, but describe what you think the sense of flow is and time. And one of the earliest things Brett said to me was, “If this film could be silence without dialogue, I would love that version.”
And obviously in my mind I’m like, what? What are you talking about? But it was such a wonderful guiding principle because again, it opened up for me like, okay. We never got as far as to really try it with a given scene. But my approach then, whenever I was assembling a scene and refining it was, is this dialogue necessary? Is there a way to do it without dialogue? And if not, or even if you only remove a little bit of dialogue, how much can I tell with a glance? How much can I tell of this feeling with just emotion or body language?
And I think that ended up coming through, that principal came through with the performances, especially with Link, who is always…Phillip is always doing so much. There’s a weight to Link’s character that is prominent throughout the film. And we spent the most time from the beginning of the film at that three hour stage up until the final moments of locking was making sure that every bit of Link’s nuance was coming through and that you always felt like there was more going on underneath the surface no matter what scene he was in. And I’m proud of what we ended up with.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Absolutely. And did you end up losing a lot of dialogue in the film, in the process?
Bretten Hannam:
Not as much as I thought we would. But yeah, when I write there’s not a ton of dialogue anyway. And I remember talking to Gharrett, one of our producers, and I was like, “Yeah, but it’s fine. They can say this scene.” Or, “In this scene they can say this or that.” I was like, “This dialogue is just to get us to the place anyway. I’m going to cut it.” And he is like, “What? There’s like barely any dialogue, how can you cut?” and then as we began to work on it and Shaun is kind of retooling and approaching these scenes in these different ways with these looks and really crafting with silence, which I love, then I think it became clearer about like, oh, okay, yeah, do we need this? I was like, “No, we do need that line. We do need that.”
Shaun Rykiss:
There was a lot of taking out dialogue to see if we needed it and then putting it back in.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Right right, see if you can get away with it.
Bretten Hannam:
Yeah.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Yeah. Nice.
Shaun Rykiss:
Well, that’s what happens when you’re writing good scripts.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Well, on that note, let’s talk about reshaping a scene a bit and go to the Smokey meeting.

[clip plays]
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
So Shaun, why don’t you tell us about the challenges in that scene?
Shaun Rykiss:
Yeah, this, as you alluded to, was quite a challenge, actually, the most challenging. This and the scenes that follow for about the next 10 mins or so…5-10 minutes were the most challenging part of the edit because we ended up completely retooling the use of this character Smokey. In the script and what was shot, Smokey is much more of a vague character. Vague is actually the wrong word, he’s more of a red herring in that he’s presented to the boys, and through their perspective, he’s much more of a darker character. He’s a lot more…they build this…they see this kind of biker looking dude with tattoos and in the original performance that we had more of a tough portrayal, tough personality. They misconstrue Smokey as a bit more of a criminal type.
And so in the original staging of the sequence, we don’t reveal that he is a baker initially. He’s a lot more shady is the word I keep trying to look for and then when he asks them to come help him, it’s more of help him with a job. And so by the time they get to the convenience store, that whole engagement outside of the convenience store at the van is a lot more ambiguous and it’s more like Link and the boys are tense about Link going in to help Smokey pull a job.
And then the scene that follows when they get back into the van after talking to the store clerk, Desna, it’s a lot more tense. And Link thinks that Smokey robbed the place while he was swinging around back. And at one point there’s a gun involved. And we ended up cutting all of that, not cutting it out, but we cut out the gun, we cut out the tension and we brought a lot more focus to the real Smokey who inevitably in the original version would’ve discovered this sweet kindhearted baker who is just a member of the community who ends up being a gateway for Link and the boys into this inclusive community that they end up meeting.
Ultimately, we changed it for a number of reasons. This was the thing that we got the most feedback on, that people continuously in that original version were either confused by or they thought there was too much going on, or it was just…just wasn’t feeling quite right. It also was a longer sequence. So we were constantly looking for ways to get it more concise, trim it down and to clarify. And in the end it resulted in, why don’t we just try making Smokey who he is from the beginning? Which then dictated how the rest of the changes played out.
But ultimately I would say we’re happier with it because Smokey’s already a unique, interesting character without the red herring and especially in this film full of joy and community building and discovery of culture, you want that to be the driving force behind their interaction with Smokey. And the other stuff, as much as it was fun and there’s some action and whatnot, it was getting in the way of the bigger journey. So we got down to it and started cutting out guns and stuff.
Bretten Hannam:
There’s too many rocks in the river. We had to pull up some rocks and let the water keep going.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Fair enough, fair enough. Speaking of the river, let’s go to the waterfall, also known as the sex scene.

[clip plays]
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
So why don’t you tell us about that? You wanted to talk about length, we spent a lot of time with them. So tell us about your decisions in that.
Shaun Rykiss:
Yeah, the main point to discuss, as you pointed out, is the length. Because it’s a longer scene, it was always a longer scene from every point. It certainly was longer at the earlier stages and we did find ways to cut it down. But one of the most interesting things that happened with the scene was every time we cut it down more we felt resistance from the scene. We felt like we were losing too much or we often felt like there was a beat that got lost or there wasn’t enough time between beats compared to a previous version.
So, ultimately the scene didn’t change too much from what those early release rough cut scenes and the version of the scenes ended up being because every single beat, every single moment of intimacy throughout felt like it wanted to be there. It felt like it was earned. And as soon as you lost one, even in trying to make things a little bit more concise, you realized that you lost a piece of the journey, a piece of the boys becoming comfortable with one another or a piece of permission because one thing that we were incredibly careful with with the scene was making sure that both parties felt included, both parties wanted what inevitably comes. We never wanted this to be at all ever portrayed as there might be an imbalance within this moment. It was always 100% the two of them together in the moment. And they progress slowly because that’s how these things in a loving relationship do, without force and without resistance. And so that was incredibly important to us to make sure that the intimacy felt genuine.
Bretten Hannam:
It’s one of those things where it’s weird to watch it out of the context. Joshua and Phillip were incredibly vulnerable in this scene and just…I didn’t expect them to do some of the things that they did like they worked the scene on their own. And it was more kind of me talking to them and saying, “What are you comfortable with? How far are we going to go?” With these different stages of elevating the intimacy between them.
And then there’s just stuff in there kind of…Kim, you were talking about like, did they do anything that surprised me ever, and this was one of those times. In kind of close to the end, or after this interaction is finished, you hear a little bit of dialogue between them. That’s not…that just kind of comes out in the moment when Pasmay says, “Are you okay? Are you sure?” That was like…you can’t write that. It just happens. And then making sure in the edit, when we’re doing the sound edit, the edit is there and we can hear, and then we’re doing the sound edit. I think it got pushed back at some point because the-
Shaun Rykiss:
Because it was soft.
Bretten Hannam:
Yeah, it was very soft. And I was like, “No, we got to bring that back” and preserving that moment. But really the thing about the scene is when we were shaping it and some of the things that we tried was kinda getting into it quicker and then it becomes more about, oh, they’re just two teenagers hooking up.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Yeah.
Bretten Hannam:
Right? That’s a different vibe than this is really about an emotional connection, like a deeper connection that happens. It’s not you know one then done and one-night stand type thing, they’re actually kind of building off this existing bond and that’s the first part of like, oh, they’re kind of playing around and then it’s kind of like, okay, we’re kind of doing this and then, oh, we’re doing this and then, okay, let’s do this. We’re in…like together.
So I think that, Shaun, is the thing when we kept taking parts out, we were deconstructing that ramp up or that progression and then it just felt kind of like, whoa, now we’re just pulling middle parts out of the thing and it doesn’t seem to be…you can’t collapse the middle part. And you just get a beginning and an end and it’s like, it’s fine, but it doesn’t have that weight to it. And then the consent too as well between them is, the clarity of that was important because of the scene, the day after scene that happens.
Shaun Rykiss:
To Brett’s point, in addition to those earlier moments of them being playful early on leading to the first kiss, the final moments were one that got played with a lot too, because the exit of that scene could be at various points. There was a point where we went as far as cutting out in the middle of one of their big heavy breaths while there was a thrust going on and then we cut hard into the next scene.
And again, we felt we lost…immediately Brett and I felt like we lost so much by doing that. We gave it a try. We showed it to people just to see how it felt but ultimately hearing the two. First of all, seeing them embrace lovingly in a relatively non-sexual way after their intimacy was so essential because the most important thing was that this was a loving relationship that we were building towards that.
And two was the smile that Link gives Pasmay at the end was also essential for that reason. Because even then going further, where okay we didn’t cut quite as early as I just said, but we cut before that smile because the note was to tighten up the finale. Okay, we’ve seen them do it, we see them, they’re happy…okay, let’s just get out. And again, by cutting even just that little moment of them kissing and then backing off a little bit and Link giving him a little bit of a glance, losing that you lost some intimacy, it became more vague. And especially going into the next scene where things are a lot more ambiguous, it created a lot of questions and problems in terms of where the two were in the relationship. So in the end, every one of those beats in the sex scene earned its spot and became required for the journey that we were trying to build.
Bretten Hannam:
It’s a delicate thing, the smallest little moment can change the context of everything that comes after it.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Yeah. Okay. Well why don’t we show the scene after? And I’m really glad, I don’t know if budget-wise you tried to get talked out of it, Brett, but I’m so glad you did go underwater or you had the camera.
Bretten Hannam:
Yeah.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
It really does something for the first part of the scene when they’re just playing around or whatever. There’s something…I don’t know. There’s something really that works about that, so I’m glad you did that.
Bretten Hannam:
I wanted more, but…

[clip plays]
Shaun Rykiss:
Well obviously it’s a direct continuation off of…so that is exact following scene coming from the sex scene and just on the page, it’s already such a fascinating scene because the dynamic is so interesting. Certainly the dialogue implies that Link is in a very strange headspace. He’s not sure how he feels. He’s obviously grappling with a lot of different emotions, a lot of his history and a lot of probably his father’s in the back of his mind, his upbringing, the world of oppression that he’s been feeling. Those things stick with you.
And so in having this wonderful experience the night before, his world has been rocked a bit and he clearly has experienced something that he’s never experienced before. Be it that level of intimacy or love, be it that style of physical interaction. A lot of that is vague, which is deliberate on Brett’s part, and I think rightfully so, because it makes far more interesting scene to leave it open-ended.
But from an edited standpoint, it was one of those just fantastic scenes where you’re again, working not as much with dialogue entirely as much as you are with body language as well. One of the best notes that I got in the film was when we were editing an early version of the scene that was a little bit less deliberate with the footage and the coverage in that you could see more of Link’s face and Brett rightfully pointed out, “I want to try it where you never see Link’s face except for right at the end when he turns to camera” to help obfuscate his feelings.
So you don’t get a specific sense of how he’s feeling in the moment. Let his vocal performance and his body language dictate how people perceive Link in that moment. But let all of Pasmay’s vulnerability drive that scene more than anything and this is my favorite Pasmay scene. I think Josh brings such an interesting energy because he’s clearly full in on this relationship at this point and his reaction to how Link is feeling is…I always find it interesting because he doesn’t know what to do. He’s clearly found somebody who he thinks is his person and he doesn’t want to lose them and clearly Link is in a space where as much as he enjoys being with Pasmay, he’s not sure how to handle this. So the dynamic is just fantastic.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
And tell us about the tail end of the scene.
Shaun Rykiss:
The Mi’kmaq dialogue before Pasmay walks off and that was from another scene that we ended up losing over the course of the edit and that scene is actually in the montage that follows, which is in the laundromat. And there was a full-fledged scene there that we won’t get into because there’s a lot. It was one of our longest scenes, it was like an eight-minute scene or something. But one of the best moments of that scene was this quiet little interaction at the end when the boys are alone. And as you hear it, Link asks Pasmay to speak the language because it comforts him and in losing that scene for various reasons, we missed that dialogue.
And so you’re always looking for opportunities to reuse material because that’s the best part about editing is that nothing is final and nothing is concrete and you can move things as you wish as long as you get creative. So after refining the scene a bit, I just decided to play around with placing that dialogue elsewhere, and thank goodness we had a scene where most of the dialogue is off camera…or faces are off camera and so in finding some extra footage where they’re not talking and you can move their body language to the language, placed it in and did a little bit of an edit on the dialogue. It was a little bit longer initially. And through Brett’s translation and some ADR, we tightened that up a bit and made it work within the context. But it ended up being one of our favorite moments and whenever we hear from audiences, people often quote that line that Pasmay says when he’s talking about Link and thank goodness we kept it in because I think it defines both of them so beautifully.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Yeah, very nice and then it was the laundromat scene that was eight minutes long, did you say?
Shaun Rykiss:
Yeah, something like that.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Yeah. And it’s distilled down to just a couple shots now with something…I think it’s the only time you ever use it as the voiceover disconnected from the shots.
Shaun Rykiss:
We do one other time in a couple scenes that follow and another montage scene. And it is something that in discovering in one of those two scenes we were editing, that we would’ve liked to have done more of in hindsight because-
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Yeah, there was something very powerful about just that little bit in the laundromat. To have those lines spoken that way.
Shaun Rykiss:
Well, and I personally, I love when you can marry disconnected audio with image and editing. I love those shots of Pasmay in the laundromat where you can see by body language he’s uncomfortable and he’s tense. And in combination with that line of dialogue that we included, it just told the story and was able to resolve some exposition that we thought we needed, that we didn’t, just by rewriting a line a little bit and placing it with the right picture and getting a little montage going. So, we’re happy with the way that turned out.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
And the film does have…there’s several montages throughout. Were those scripted, Brett, or did those all come about in the edit suite?
Bretten Hannam:
I don’t think they were…I don’t think I wrote any montages.
Shaun Rykiss:
As I recall, most of the montages, like we talked about earlier, there was just so much great footage and you guys had just, because you were shooting in the middle of the summer and you’re often waiting for certain times a day, you just got a lot of extra stuff. If you saw a great landscape, you might as well shoot walking along it and stuff. And so we had this plethora of great, beautiful footage of the boys in various scenarios. And so we were always looking for opportunities, especially when you’re trying to pace out the film.
There was a lot of times where emotionally you’re going from big changes and there were a few moments like this one where you’re coming off of Link and Pasmay having the most emotionally draining experience and there’s a lot of tension between them. And without this montage, initially it went to another scene where they’re immediately at each other’s throat and they argue at a payphone and it just felt too rushed. As much as there was tension between them, it wasn’t quite anger and frustration yet, but we were going there immediately.
And so this was one of those opportunities where we’re like, well, aside from trying to find a scene that we could place there that we had cut and not having that available that fit, what else could we do? Well, let’s try building a montage. And then through order of operations, you’re sitting there trying to think of what can we layer onto this to add to it to make it fit within our film and the flow of things? And so you start with the visuals and then you start layering on. What if we added narration? What if we took some dialogue and helped clarify where they’re at? Or right now at this point, we need to remind audiences that they’re on a journey to get to this place, Blanket Hill. And then you kind of take all these ideas and you end up with a concise montage like this.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
And did you cut any of them to temp music, Shaun?
Shaun Rykiss:
No, none of them. That was partially because we had been looking for a composer for a while throughout the editing. Again it’s a seven, eight month edit so you’re obviously trying to lock it in a composer as early on as you can, but unfortunately we just didn’t have the right person at the time. Eventually we did find the right person, which was Neil Haverty, who did a fantastic job with what you hear.
But no, we had, as a result of not having a composer on board, made the choice to edit without music and so we edited the entire film right up until almost picture lock, or I should say fine cut. By the time we got to fine cut, we did end up temping in a few things just to make sure that we had the right tone but for the first six months or so, up to the late fine cut, there was no temp music.
And I’m so grateful for that because you can often use temp music as a crutch to both convey emotion and to set up the tone feel of a scene. And as with everything else in this film, with the material, with the writing, it’s very organic and it’s freeform and it’s a bunch of boys wandering through the woods and it required musically a similar feeling and was very hard to temp for, for one thing but also I think it just had a natural rhythm. The footage had a natural rhythm that we wanted to abide by. So, I’m glad we cut it without, because by the time we did get the composer on board, it just was a natural fit.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
I was going to say it’s brave cutting it with no music, but maybe I should say it’s confident cutting it with no music.
Shaun Rykiss:
Well, I appreciate both those statements. It was definitely a fearful experience initially because again, it’s music. You know that feeling when you put the right piece of music in, you’re like, ah, this is the one. And we all know, what do we call it now? Tempatitis or whatever it is, where you get attached to your temp. And I’ve had that experience when I’m dealing with other smaller projects and I just wanted to try to avoid it for as long as possible. Because the idea of hearing a movie with music for the first time when it’s just the music that was meant for that film, I still strive for that experience. Haven’t had it yet, but this is as close as I’ve come.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Nice. And you do some other, I think it is kind of sound draining throughout the film where it’s almost devoid of any sound but music. Was that a sound mix thing or did you work with that, Shaun? Or? Oh no, you didn’t have music. So, that would’ve been a mix thing.
Shaun Rykiss:
By the time we got to the end of a fine cut for the last few weeks, we did start temping stuff in. So there were definitely moments where we then played with, okay, is this a moment that is entirely musically driven or not? I like moments that are entirely musically driven, whereas oftentimes people feel like everything needs to be grounded within the film and you need to hear what you’re feeling.
Yeah, I think ultimately the moments that we did end up without much diegetic and we just lived in the music, those were designed from the beginning to be that way. Sometimes it was necessary because again, with these montages, it’s like there wasn’t necessarily dialogue or production sound that was worth including. So sometimes it was out of necessity when you’re building a montage and you’re like, well, should we try to plan in the mix to build in a soundscape? And we almost always did at least include some nature stuff because it was just so important to the film as a whole. But yeah, I don’t think it’s always necessary. I think sometimes the right piece of music can absolutely carry a sequence. And I think it does in this case.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Yeah, absolutely. So we have your scene with Becky.

[clip plays]
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
I love that in the credits it says, “And introducing Becky Julian.” That’s so nice. As if she’s a young one, and she knew we’re going to be seeing lots more of, and I certainly hope we are going to be seeing more of her because she really is fantastic in this. Okay, so I’ll leave it to you guys. What do you want to tell us about this scene?
Bretten Hannam:
For all the scenes with Elder Becky Julian, she speaks Mi’kmaq, she speaks the language. I am not fluent. I’m learning. So we got the scripts, I think Gharrett gave her the pages. We talked about the story with her. She agreed to do it. She was translating pages as she wanted. I can’t tell her what to do. I would never presume to do that. It’s a bit odd because you don’t really direct elders, you treat elders with a lot of respect. So, it’s more kind of like, what can I do to facilitate what she’s just going to do and I don’t have control over that. I mean…do I have control over it with other actors? Probably not either.
So embracing that and the direction that I’m giving her is more kind of like, “Do you need a break? Do you need some tea? Do you need some water? Are you okay to do this again, or are we done?” And she would kind of dictate that as she was comfortable, or if she felt she had said what she needed to say. And she was translating on the fly too. So she would read her page or she’d read her dialogue and then speak in English as a lot of people do to teach and then that would be that.
The camera just absolutely loves her and she has such a presence. In real life, there’s so many more sides always to a person. But Becky’s just Becky. Elder Becky’s just…that’s her. And so it’s kind of like we got all this footage and we’re starting to look through it. It’s like, okay, well this will have a dialogue in it and it will have as much possible. Can we get Elder Becky’s face in there? And just having this moment, this connection.
You can see Link very actively listening and Phillip too, when he was there, the way we’re interacting with this elder, he’s actively listening and just kind of like very absorbed. And I think that kind of comes across too with the footage and how it’s shaped as well. But that is definitely one of the easier experiences for me working with non-actors because you never know who…and then, so it’s like, are we going to be covering this from 20 angles? Or 4 or 1, or are we just going to…and then Guy of course is so good. Guy finds it.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Did you have much coverage on this, Brett?
Bretten Hannam:
I don’t think we did, Shaun?
Shaun Rykiss:
Basically what you see in the scene is what we had. I wouldn’t say that we had anything else and as Brett said, the guiding philosophy with this scene became, let’s stay on Becky as long as humanly possible because in addition to the camera just loving her visibly, she’s just so…the way that she performed, the way that she spoke the lines and added her own flare, there’s just such truth in it. You just believe every single word.
It really is fascinating watching Phillip, who’s a seasoned young actor and you know he’s a good performer is how engaged and how much he’s listening. That’s what a good performer does. They listen. And even though it’s his movie and always technically leads scene, she absolutely steals it but in a way that he offers the scene to her by just listening and reacting in a way that feels so weighted. The words hit him that she speak.
A. they’re so beautiful and genuine, and
B. as a result, they hit Phillip performing as Link so wonderfully that you feel every single word and you feel the connection that she forms between him and his mother and it is so essential because it sets up the final sequence of events. And I’m just so grateful that Becky brought so much of herself to the scene because you feel it and the wisdom of it makes it one of those just blowout scenes that you want to come back to because it has worth, it has emotional and spiritual and wise worth.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
And did she do all of her lines in English and Mi’kmaq?
Bretten Hannam:
She just had the script in English. So, she would read the script, then she would speak it in the language, and then she would give the English version of it. So, I don’t even remember…I don’t think what I wrote is exactly what she said in the English one either, but whatever.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
It works.
Bretten Hannam:
Who cares?
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
It works. Yeah. Yeah.
Bretten Hannam:
It’s way better anyway.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
It’s very authentic. So, Brett, distribution of this film, what is happening with it? How will the world get to see this?
Bretten Hannam:
I think it’s finishing up a theatrical right now in like one or two spots.
Shaun Rykiss:
I think as of today it’s up on VOD.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Oh, cool cool. And while they’re checking that out, Brett, too, Brett has also done another wonderful film that I love, North Mountain which is a thriller set in Nova Scotia, which is tons of fun with a fine acting turn by your producer of this film, Gharrett. So, folks have got to check that out. Is that available anywhere, Brett?
Bretten Hannam:
I don’t know if it is. It kind of only comes out once a year.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Is that…
Bretten Hannam:
When the distributor pulls it out. Yeah, I’m sure there’s a copy of it somewhere online somewhere.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Well seek it out, folks, because it’s worth a look too – North Mountain. Well, thank you both so much for being here today. It truly is a wonderful film. Congratulations on all the accolades it’s received. And congrats to Joshua too for his CSA. Well deserved. There’s some amazing performances in the film, so kudos to your actors and both of you of course, too.
Bretten Hannam:
Thank you.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
All right, thanks, Brett. Thanks, Shaun.
Shaun Rykiss:
Thank you.
Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE:
Bye, you all.
Sarah Taylor:
Thank you so much for joining us today, and a big thank you goes out to Brett, Shaun, and Kimberlee.

The main title sound design was created by Jane Tattersall, ADR recording by Andrea
Rusch. Original music by Chad Blain and Soundstripe. This episode was mixed and mastered by Tony
Bao.

The CCE has been supporting Indspire – an organization that provides funding and scholarships
for Indigenous post secondary students. We have a permanent portal on our website at
cceditors.ca or you can donate directly at indspire.ca. The CCE is taking steps to build a more
equitable ecosystem within our industry and we encourage our members to participate in any
way they can.
If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please rate and review us on Apple Podcasts and tell your friends
to tune in. ‘Til next time I’m your host Sarah Taylor.

[Outro]
The CCE is a non-profit organization with the goal of bettering the art and science of picture
editing. If you wish to become a CCE member please visit our website www.cceditors.ca. Join
our great community of Canadian editors for more related info.

Abonnez-vous là où vous écoutez vos balados

Que voulez-vous entendre sur L'art du montage?

Veuillez nous envoyer un courriel en mentionnant les sujets que vous aimeriez que nous abordions, ou les monteurs.euses dont vous aimeriez entendre parler, à :

Crédits

Un grand Merci à

Jane MacRae
<br

Sharvai Barfiwala</br

Hosted and Produced by

Sarah Taylor

Design sonore du générique d'ouverture

Jane Tattersall

ADR Recording by

Andrea Rusch

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Musique originale par

Chad Blain

Sponsor Narration by

Paul Winestock

Commandité par

Integral Artists

IATSE 891

AQTIS 514

Catégories
L'art du montage

Episode 012 – Meet Amélie Labrèche

EPISODE012_Meet AMELIE LABRECHE

Episode 12: Meet Amélie Labrèche

Cet épisode est commandité par MELS STUDIOS

For this new episode, we welcome our new host: Catherine Legault, she will introduce us to Amélie Labrèche.

Episode 012-Amélie Labrèche and Catherine Legault

Catherine a repris le flambeau de notre chère Myriam Poirier, pour quelques épisodes. De son côté Myriam a pris une pause du micro pour se consacrer pleinement à ses projets.

 We chose to speak with the young and prolific editor, Amélie Labrèche. After working for years as an assistant, Amélie made the leap to editing in 2016. Since then, she has been working on fiction, documentary and TV series projects. Catherine invites you to trace the path of Amélie’s young career.

kuessipan_picture lock_Amelie Labreche

Listen this episode to have more context behind this photo of Amélie’s Timeline.

 

 

 

Kuessipan’s Picture Lock

Crédit photo: Amélie Labrèche

Amélie Labrèche in session with Catherine Legault at MELS Studio

Catherine Legault and Amélie Labrèche during their recording session at MELS Studios in downtown Montreal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crédit photo: Catherine Legault

Catherine Legault balado podcast

Pour en apprendre un peu plus sur notre nouvelle animatrice :

Catherine Legault is an award-winning documentary filmmaker and film editor. She graduated from Film Production at Concordia University’s Mel Hoppenheim School of Cinema, in Montreal. Over the past 20 years, she has worked on several films that have screened internationally in theatres, festivals, and on television. Her collaborations have included PilgrIMAGE, by Peter Wintonick and Mira Burt-Wintonick, Mort subite d’un homme-théâtre, by Jean-Claude Coulbois, Les manèges humains, by Martin Laroche, The Wandering Muse, by Tamas Wormser, La démolition familiale by Patrick Damien, Les lettres de ma mère, by Serge Giguère, and Rebels on Pointe and FANNY: The Right to Rock, by Bobbi Jo Hart. Recipient of two Gémeaux awards for her TV series editing work, she received the Iris award for Best Documentary Editing at the Gala Québec Cinéma for La démolition familiale, in 2017. She was nominated again for Les lettres de ma mère and Fanny: The Right to Rock. In 2019, Catherine directed her first feature documentary, Sisters: Dream & Variations, which was awarded at the IndieFEST Film Awards in five categories and at the Gala Québec Cinéma for Best Documentary Original Score. Catherine is currently in production for her next film, LARRY (They/them), which will be released in 2023.

À écouter ici !

Abonnez-vous là où vous écoutez vos balados

Que voulez-vous entendre sur L'art du montage?

Veuillez nous envoyer un courriel en mentionnant les sujets que vous aimeriez que nous abordions, ou les monteurs.euses dont vous aimeriez entendre parler, à :

Crédits

Un grand Merci à

Amélie Labrèche

Catherine Legault

Maud Le Chevallier

Animé par

Catherine Legault

Montage

Pauline Decroix

Preneur de son

Mathieu Maillé

Design sonore du générique d'ouverture

Jane Tattersall, adapté en version française par Pauline Decroix

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Musique originale par

Commandité par

Catégories
The Editors Cut

The Editors Cut – Episode 065 – Creatives Empowered Presents: Why Anti-Racism Still Matters

Episode 065 - Creatives Empowered Presents: Why Anti-Racism Still Matters

In today’s episode we talk with the Executive Director of Creatives Empowered, Shivani Saini. We talk about how Creatives Empowered came to be and share a panel that Creatives Empowered produced called Why Anti-Racism Still Matters. The panel includes Reneltta Arluk (Director of Indigenous Arts, BANFF Centre for Arts and Creativity), Patti Pon (President and CEO, Calgary Arts Development), and Kizzie Sutton (Executive Director, Calgary Society for Independent Filmmakers).

CREATIVES EMPOWERED (CE) is a non-profit collective of artists + creatives. We are Black, Indigenous and People of Colour, empowering each other as an allied community. We are film + tv, media and arts professionals – from emerging to established – based in western Canada. We are the first and only organization of its kind in Alberta. CE is inspired by and embodies what is truly possible when racialized talent are empowered to thrive. To learn more, please visit creativesempowered.ca

Shivani is an award-winning producer, consultant, strategist and skillful communicator with over 25 years of professional film, television, media and arts experience. She is a dedicated advocate for equity within mainstream media and the cultural sector. A Ryerson Radio & Television Arts graduate, her career spans all genres of production, from the creative to the business side. Her portfolio includes critically acclaimed film and television, groundbreaking museum content, cutting edge theatre, international visual arts affairs, social media initiatives and festivals that cultivate new works. Select producing credits include the award-winning dramatic tv series Blackstone. Her company Atelier Culturati, empowers arts + culture through consulting, producing and communications, and is uniquely positioned to create strategies, content, and engagement that fosters true equity, diversity and inclusion. Atelier Culturati’s vision is to create and support works that positively transform the human condition.

 

The resources mentioned in this episode can be found ici.

À écouter ici !

The Editor’s Cut – Episode 065 – “Creatives Empowered Presents: Why Anti-Racism Still Matters”

Patti Pon:
As people of colour or marginalized communities, every day we walk through life, and every day we catch arrows, right? I’m the only person of colour. I’m the only woman. People say stupid things to me. They mistake me for the catering staff instead of the attendee at the conference, right? They’re surprised when I don’t have an accent. So every day, I get those arrows. And every day I have to come home and pull the arrows out all by myself, or with the support of my loved ones. You want to be an accomplice: how about, make it so that those arrows don’t come at me in the first place?
Sarah Taylor:
Hello, and welcome to The Editor’s Cut. I’m your host, Sarah Taylor. We would like to point out that the lands on which we have created this podcast, and that many of you may be listening to us from, are part of ancestral territory. It is important for all of us to deeply acknowledge that we are on ancestral territory that has long served as a place where Indigenous peoples have lived, met and interacted. We honour, respect and recognize these nations that have never relinquished their rights or sovereign authority over the lands and waters on which we stand today. We encourage you to reflect on the history of the land, the rich culture, the many contributions and the concerns that impact Indigenous individuals and communities. Land acknowledgements are the start to a deeper action.
Sarah Taylor:
Today, I’m talking with the executive director of Creatives Empowered, Shivani Saini, and sharing a panel that Creatives Empowered produced called “Why Anti-Racism Still Matters.” Creatives Empowered is inspired by, and embodies, what is truly possible when racialized talent are empowered to thrive. Creatives Empowered is a federally incorporated, virtual non-profit organization founded by Shivani Saini and Atelier Culturati and made its inaugural public launch on November 16th, 2020. Their strong and growing membership demonstrates the need for this organization in Alberta and is already proving that the talent does exist. Their ownership, leadership, and board governance is 100% racialized and all Alberta-based. It’s also important to know that Creators Empowered inherently serves all racialized talent within Alberta.

[show open]
Sarah Taylor:
Shivani, thank you so much for joining us today on The Editor’s Cut.
Shivani Saini:
My pleasure. Thank you for having me.
Sarah Taylor:
To start off, can you tell us a little bit about your background in film and television and how Creatives Empowered came to be?
Shivani Saini:
I’ve worked in professional film, television, media and the arts for over 25 years. I actually started my career when I was quite young, as a teenager, with the National Screen Institute. And I’ve had the opportunity throughout my career to work in virtually every discipline, every type of production, genre of production that exists, everything from the creative side to the business side. And in November of 2020, I launched Creatives Empowered alongside other established racialized professionals here in Alberta.
Sarah Taylor:
And now can you tell us a little bit about what Creatives Empowered is, and what the mission of Creatives Empowered is?
Shivani Saini:
So, Creatives Empowered is actually Alberta’s first and only non-profit collective that’s by and for BIPOC film, television, media and arts professionals who live and work in the colonial boundary known as Alberta. And we exist to be a safe and supportive community for BIPOC artists and creatives. We’re here to advocate for and represent their interests and their needs. We work to increase professional opportunities for them, to provide empowering and educational resources, events, and professional development. And we also network, collaborate and share with like-minded individuals and organizations across Canada and also around the world.
Sarah Taylor:
Why did you feel like you needed to create an organization like this in Alberta?
Shivani Saini:
In 2019, I had a series of professional experiences that I would describe as empowering and disempowering, which I think every human being can relate to, regardless of background. For myself personally, I started to become consciously aware of the correlation, the relationship between the disempowering experiences I was having and systemic racism. And once I started to see this pattern and then really started to reflect back on my entire 25-plus-year career, I couldn’t ignore what I was seeing anymore. And this conscious awareness was something I developed really at the tail end of 2019, so the timing of it was quite interesting. And then of course the pandemic began in 2020, and then the events of the summer of 2020 happened.
And, it was at that point that I realized it would just be really, really important to really consider doing something here. And this was actually an idea I had in 2019, because one of the empowering experiences I had actually involved working with the Reelworld Film Festival and Screen Institute, which was established over 20 years ago to advocate for equity in Canada’s screen sector. And it was founded by Tonya Williams. So it was clear to me that it just would’ve been so incredible to have had access to something like that in my formative years, and I thought it would be great to set something up here in Alberta. Prior to the pandemic, it wasn’t something I had the time and the energy to do, but after the events of the summer of 2020, I started to have a lot of conversations with other established, seasoned, racialized professionals here in Alberta, and also with folks across the country.
And these conversations were so interesting and they were really empowering because despite the fact that each of our respective experiences with systemic racism, of course, are going to be a little bit different because we’re all different people—we’re all different individuals with different journeys and life paths—there was this commonality, this universality in our experiences that just created an inherent understanding of what being subjected to systemic racism is actually like, and that the understanding is almost unspoken. We just know. And it just became so clear to me that it would be tremendously valuable to have something here in Alberta that’s by and for people who live and work here.
And I know that in Canada we’ve got film and television production regions that are bigger—places like Toronto, places like Vancouver—but the reality is there are a lot of really talented artists and creatives living and working in Alberta that want to tell stories. And some of those folks are also BIPOC, IBPOC, racialized, and it was just really clear we needed something that was really by and for us. And so after having a series of conversations, it just became very apparent in November that it was time to put something together. And one day I sat down in front of my computer and wrote out what Creatives Empowered was. I wrote out the vision mission and value statement, and this material really wrote itself. It did not take long to articulate what this was. And then shortly thereafter, the Canada Media Fund had come out with sector development support specifically for initiatives like this one. So the timing was quite serendipitous and obviously meant to be, and we applied and were successful, and that’s what brings us to where we are today.
Sarah Taylor:
Amazing. Well, with that funding and I’m sure other people supporting Creatives Empowered, you’ve been able to put on a bunch of different workshops and events. And we, as the Canadian Cinema Editors, have joined Creatives Empowered as an ally partner. So we’re going to share today on the podcast, an event that Creatives Empowered put on. Can you tell us a little bit about the panel that we’re going to listen to today?
Shivani Saini:
So this event that you’re going to listen to today is such a powerful conversation. It’s called Why Anti-Racism Still Matters. It features Reneltta Arluk. She is the director of Indigenous Arts at the Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity. She is also the founder of AKPIK Theatre. It features Patti Pon, who’s the president and CEO of Calgary Arts Development. And Kizzie Sutton, the executive director of the Calgary Society of Independent Filmmakers. And to be honest, the idea for this event actually was a sticky note. I had just wrote down the words “why anti-racism still matters,” and these three names came to mind. The sticky note was sitting in my notebook since last year, and I had a chance to reach out to the three of them and say, “Hey, I’d like to invite you to be a part of this event. What do you think?” They all said yes. And, the rest is history. These are three incredible women doing incredible work in their respective fields, and just absolute powerhouses. And we had such an incredible and enlightening conversation on why anti-racism still matters.
Sarah Taylor:
Oh, amazing. I can’t wait to share with everybody. Before we jump to the panel, I want to know, how can people participate and/or join, and work with Creators Empowered?
Shivani Saini:
Sure. So we offer free lifetime membership to racialized individuals and any of the organizations they own and operate. And you can easily sign up for that on our website, you just have to go to the “join” page. And if you’re interested in becoming an ally, that’s something that organizations can also do, the information’s available on that page. And we are, actually—because of the fact that we were born out of the pandemic—a virtual nonprofit. And we have designed a website that allows us to deliver our mission online, and we do it through social media. So you can explore our website, you’ll see that we have different events and resources just like the one that we mentioned, that are available for people to check out. We also have an opportunities page, which is basically a free classified section for Alberta’s cultural sector. So if you have opportunities, job opportunities, project opportunities that you want to share with a diverse community, you can easily post them there. And there are other ways to support as well. We are always seeking supporters and partners, sponsors. So folks can absolutely feel free to get in touch with us. You can do that through our website too, and we can start some great conversation to see what might be possible.
Sarah Taylor:
Amazing. Well, I’m glad that we did, and I’m glad that we can share this panel with everyone today. Thank you so much for joining us.
Shivani Saini:
Thank you.
Crew Member 1:
And action.
Crew Member 2:
Action.
Shivani Saini:
Hello everyone. Thank you so much for joining us. Creatives Empowered is pleased to present “Why Anti-Racism Still Matters.” I’d like to start off with a land acknowledgement. Creatives Empowered is a virtual nonprofit that serves all racialized talent within the colonial boundary known as Alberta. We acknowledge that we live, work, and play on the traditional Treaty Territories of 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10, along with the Métis Nation regions of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. We also acknowledge that we are on stolen land. These are the traditional territories of many First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples, specifically in Treaty 6, the Cree, the Dene, the Anishinaabe, the Saulteaux, Nokota Isga, the Nakota Sioux, and the Blackfoot peoples. Specifically in Treaty 7, the people of the Blackfoot Confederacy in Siksiká, Kainai and Piikani, the Tsuu T’ina First Nation and the people of Stoney Nakoda, and Chiniki, Bearspaw, and Wellesley. And specifically in Treayt 8, the Cree, the Dene Tha’, the Dane-zaa, the Denesuline, the Nakota Sioux, the Iroquois, and the Inuit peoples. We express, with the utmost of respect, our deepest gratitude for the manner in which these traditional peoples have honoured these treaties. And in the spirit of reconciliation, we are committed to doing the same in how we live, work, and play on their traditional lands.
Thank you once again, for joining us, I’d like to introduce you to our fantastic guests today. Let’s start with Reneltta Arluk. She is the director of Indigenous Arts at the Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity. She is Inuvialuit, Dene and Cree. She’s a mom from the Northwest Territories. She’s also the founder of AKPIK Theatre, which is a Northern-focused professional Indigenous theatre company. As we were just talking, it’s the first and only professional Indigenous theatre company in the Northwest Territories.
We have Patti Pon, who is the president and the CEO of Calgary Arts Development. She is a veteran community and arts champion, and her extensive track record of leadership and service in Calgary includes staff leadership positions at EPCOR Centre for the Performing Arts, Alberta Performing Arts Stabilization Fund, and the Alberta Theatre Projects, and volunteer positions with Calgary Foundation, Calgary Stampede, and the Asian Heritage Foundation of Southern Alberta.
We also have with us today Kizzie Sutton, and she is the executive director of the Calgary Society for Independent Filmmakers. She’s an engaging arts and community professional, and is happy to be returning to her roots in film as the executive director of CISF. I want to thank you so much, each of you, for joining us today. And I just want to start off by mentioning that this event was inspired by a sticky note that had all three of your names written down. I wrote down the words, “Why anti-racism still matters.” Your three names were the names that came to my mind. That sticky note lived in a notebook for months and then I finally got in touch with all of you to say, “Let’s make this happen.” So, thank you so much for being here today. I’m so excited to explore this really important topic.
And what we’d like to do is maybe just start off by taking a look at a definition of anti-racism. This is a source that comes from an organization called Race Forward, and I had the privilege of discovering this source through resources that Black Lives Matter had put together. “Anti-racism is defined as the work of actively opposing racism by advocating for changes in political, economic, and social life. Anti-racism tends to be an individualized approach, and set up in opposition to individual racist behaviours and impacts.” So, I’d like to start by exploring, I think a really important question to start off with just coming off of the definition that we saw, which is what really is the distinction between racism and anti-racism? And I’d love to hear some thoughts on that. Kizzie, why don’t you go first?
Kizzie Sutton:
I think the critical difference between racism and anti-racism is the direction in which people are putting their effort. At first, I was thinking, “Oh, it’s actively opposing racism.” But at the same time, when we look at systemic racism, when we look at how racism plays out within our daily lives, that is also active and very present and deliberate. So I no longer think that anti-racism is the counter, if you will, to racism as a means of where people are putting their energy, but it’s also the intent behind. Anti-racism is also hoping to reduce harm—again, my perspective—and hopefully also encourage education and learning so that we can start to change people’s perspectives and, most likely, learned patterns of behaviour. So for me, one of the biggest differences between racism and anti-racism is the act of work of trying to dismantle systems of systemic oppression, systemic racism, and impacting daily lives and trying to change the way we, as individuals, interact with each other.
Reneltta Arluk:
Yeah, I find it interesting that anti-racism seems to be an individual effort and that active racism is actually a systemic collaborative group effort. So that’s kind of an interesting awareness when we look at anti-racism from that perspective.
Patti Pon:
Yeah. I think… Just before I go there, I just want to [introduces self in Siksiká]. I have the honour of being gifted a Blackfoot name, and I do that. And so, whenever I have a chance to speak publicly, I always want to acknowledge where I’m speaking from, and that is the Treaty Seven territory of the Niitsitapi, the Blackfoot people. And it was an honour to be gifted that name, which stands for “Two Standing Headdress Woman.” It also compliments my Chinese name, which is [says name in Mandarin], which is “the Goddess on the Moon.” And then of course my English name, Patti Pon.
And I think anti-racism for me is very much what Reneltta talked to, which is, when you hear the term, I think there is an association with more of an individual approach versus when you hear the term “racism” where there’s a tendency to apply it to a system, but not apply it to me. Not, kind of, embrace that I maybe have a role to play in that. Anti-racism in the way it has surfaced or maybe what the zeitgeist is, there appears to be an association that maybe there’s something I need to do as an individual. And with the three ways in which I identify with my name, I think it attributes to—there is that many and then some ways I live and walk in this world, and that anti-racism has an application in every single one of those identities. And it recognizes that entirety of who you are and how you are in this time. So, that’s what it means to me.
Kizzie Sutton:
It’s, I guess, the pluralism of walking in the very many different facets that we as individuals take for granted and take space in. And, just like the other lovely women here shared, it’s again that act of participation in trying to dismantle that individual versus system—us, them. I love the way that anti-racism is trying to deal with the individual. We also now need to add, how does anti-racism also deal with the larger, and the group thinks that we all interact with? So, yeah, I pretty much want to echo what has been said and reiterate the importance behind it.
Shivani Saini:
I’d love to just follow up with another question. What role does accountability play in helping to understand this distinction? How important is it, why is it important, for organizations to be able to take accountability, for example, for individuals to be able to take accountability. Let’s talk a little bit about that and why that’s needed.
Reneltta Arluk:
I mean, what’s challenging and a gift is that… Yeah, I’m witnessing this now because it has become so apparent that, I think we’ve interpreted that anti-racism is neutrality, but it really isn’t. Racism is active and anti-racism has to be equally, if not stronger, in activation. But when we think about silence and complacency, I don’t think we really align that with racism. I think we align that with peace, or neutrality means that I don’t agree with you. But in truth now, I’m really encouraging people to think about, anti-racism as voice. You have to actively state, you are not racist by being present, by speaking up, by witnessing. I think we have to activate our bodies and our minds and our voices to actually be an anti-activist. Whereas before, I think we’re taught that by not engaging means that we’re not agreeing, but actually now, what I’m witnessing and seeing is a need for us to actually say, “I am not a racist. I will not tolerate that. I will not stand here and listen to that. I disagree with what you’re saying.” That we have to activate our voices more when we witness situations that are happening, that are racist.
Shivani Saini:
Thank you, Reneltta. Patti, go ahead.
Patti Pon:
Well, and I think, absolutely. And to add onto that, there’s been that adage around that if you’re not racist, then you must be anti-racist. There’s no in between. Like, that’s it. They’re binary, right? And they are mutually exclusive. And so in the same way that colonial systems, as an example, that racist systems that exist within that—we’ve had centuries to have that imposed and embedded in us, right? Even as people of colour, or visible minorities. or marginalized communities. So, we have to take that active effort to apply it and actively have anti-racist systems in place. So part of the accountability, I think, is recognizing these two things actually are mutually exclusive. You can’t be both. And so, pick a side. And for those who benefit or have had power and privilege because of the existing racist systems in place, you got to come clean.
It is a reckoning. And that doesn’t mean that you have to completely give up everything. But as Reneltta said: call it when you see it, when you know it’s wrong. And we know it’s wrong. And use that power and privilege that you have been given the benefit from this system, to get us to a new system, a different system where everybody can derive. This isn’t like a pie and there’s only so many slices. It is infinite, if we’re talking about an anti-racist system. And I think that’s something that people don’t get. We’re not replacing one, we’re starting a new one that has room for everybody. And you know, why wouldn’t you want that? And why wouldn’t you want to play your part in creating that system? And there’s space for everyone.
Shivani Saini:
Thank you, Patti. Kizzie.
Kizzie Sutton:
I think I just want to highlight that it is a dual system. It’s either on or off. It’s not, “I’m going to be Switzerland and stay neutral,” and “Oh, I don’t want to offend grandpa so I’m just not going to bring my mixed-race boyfriend over to family dinner.” Because you’re actively denying something. And if you’re actively denying something… if you look at it the other way around, you’re actively perpetuating the same system that you’re saying you’re trying to pull down. I think that’s one of the slippery slopes of allyship is that reckoning within, I guess, Caucasian and European-based families and homes, is recognizing that yes, me as an individual, we as a family, and us as a people have benefited from these systems and now it’s been so long that it feels like you’re right to be able to do whatever it is that you’re doing.
However, we recognize that it’s not right. And we recognize that we as people are all people. I say, “we.” My hope is that all of us recognize that there are people out there that obviously do not. To be an ally means to have those tough conversations in places and spaces with loved ones that I wouldn’t have access to, nor would they give me the time of day if some of their thoughts were as deeply embedded as they can be. So a part of the anti-racism state for me is really taking on that leadership role as an individual and trying to make change within the smaller circles or spheres of influence that we have.
Shivani Saini:
Thank you. Let’s jump a little further into anti-racism and allyship. One of the things that I have seen repeatedly, in terms of accountability, I see a lot of folks that come from what used to be described as “the predominant culture.” A lot of individuals, a lot of organizations in the cultural sector, really struggling to be able to take that accountability. And yet, despite the struggle, despite the reluctance or the aversion to taking accountability, simultaneously they are moving forward to demonstrate that they’re trying to be as non-racist as possible. And I think we’ve all seen examples and situations of how this can actually start to become quite problematic and perpetuate further harm against people who are racialized. And I want to talk a little bit about that right now, and talk about what really should our allies be doing?
Reneltta Arluk:
Be uncomfortable. They should just really be uncomfortable and start being okay with being uncomfortable. I just finished listening to Jesse Wente’s “Unreconciled,” which is very powerful, and we listened to it on our drive as an audio book. So he’s actually narrating his own book, which made it even more powerful… crying and laughter. But listening to that and just reflecting that in my own life, my own journey, working at Banff Centre and the work that I do as an artist and arts leader in this country is that I think we’ve just… Indigenous, BIPOC, people of colour, we just have a capacity that we’re born with. And we didn’t choose to have this capacity, we just have it.
To be successful in what we do, we have to not only balance bias, racism, judgement, gender, age—everything—roles, family roles, patriarchy, matriarchy. We have to do all that and then still be successful, and so my capacity is larger than most people that I know, because I wouldn’t be able to do what I do if I didn’t have a large capacity that… And white people don’t have to have capacity. They get to be born without suffering in a way that doesn’t challenge them every moment of the day. And so when I listen to that, I go, “Okay, so how can we raise and elevate conversation changes, undo bias?” Reconciliation is not for us, right? It’s not for our society. It’s for society to… the predominant, as you mentioned, is about growing the capacity to be uncomfortable, in just a little way. I mean, there’s techniques to do it. And I think that that would be a really great way to learn how to become more inclusive. [laughs] I’m sorry.
Kizzie Sutton:
Can I jump in? That just sparked a beautiful idea—a process, as well—is, I love that idea of the dominant culture needs to be uncomfortable because those of us that are not a part of the dominant culture have been uncomfortable for hundreds of years. So the one, two, three generations of discomfort that we hope that the dominant culture will have to deal with pales in comparison! [laughs] Generations of people of colour have been altered mentally, physically, in all areas. And that discomfort was not something that we chose. It was put upon us, but we were able to live through it and I believe we are stronger for that. And trust that, if you’re a part of the dominant culture, that you too can make it through the discomfort. It’s not, “Oh man, this bag is so heavy, I might as well just quit.”
No, you’re developing the muscles. You’re learning how to sit in the silence and hear what others are saying, and then have that change and impact the way you, again, move through your life as an individual and as a leader through and through and through. I mean, if we go back to the family unit, which is a critical unit in most peoples of colours’ backgrounds, all of the nationalities and nations that I have contacted with, the family unit is huge. And if we can really get the parents and the extended generation to connect and talk about these issues that have come to a head during our time, we really can deal with this and move forward with the anti-racism push, which will then hopefully get us to, dare I say, parity. But I think what Patti was saying is, we need to tear down the old system. We don’t need parity. We don’t need equity. What we need is a new system.
Patti Pon:
A hundred percent, Kizzie. And so, related to the… Like Shivani says, yes, the question, my immediate instant response was, “Welcome to my life. Welcome to the last… Welcome to my parents’ life. Welcome to my grandfather’s life when he came to build the railway.” So, this five or 10 or 15 or 20 years of you feeling uncomfortable is going to give you a way to relate to me that maybe you haven’t related to before. And we can do it in small doses. One thing I would say: go to a pow-wow and take in the environment, feel what it is. Be curious when you’re there, because you don’t know the protocol, you don’t know the tradition, you might not know the meaning. But I promise you, when they see you, you will be welcome. And then you will understand what a different system can look like and make you feel like when you are the other.
So there’s those kinds of things we can do that aren’t going to hurt you. At the same time, we then… I talk about a long game to those new systems, right? As a funder, as a granter, especially a public funder, right? All of the funds I invest into the sector, the vast majority of it is public. And so I’m very conscious that for decades, right, the Massey Commission report that created the Canada Council was written in like, the 1950s. And it’s the same system that we run in as funders now. I don’t know, call me crazy: a few things have changed. And what we’ve done as funders is we’ve worked on the margin, right? We’ve tried to change the system from within, and—kind of 18 months, two years ago, it occurred to me: This is no longer about working inside the system on the margins. This is about a new system. And if we don’t come to that new system, we’re never going to get to an anti-racist system of funding in the arts, of public funding.
And so some of the things we’ve done—like, we created an Indigenous arts granting program that was created by Indigenous artists. And it includes the things that the Indigenous communities who live in Treaty 7 territory believe should be supported. And then we support that community and our advisory to then do that. And so that’s what I mean about how we use our power and privilege to support other ways of knowing, of being, of funding in this particular case. And my hope is we learn something from the original… Well, not hope. We have learned things from the original people’s investment program that we are now going to transfer into our standard project grants and operating grants, and whatever other kind of grants exist from the old system. But we have to make our way there, and so for those in the dominant culture, you got to come with us on the ride. And the last thing I’ll say about that—so there’s a wonderful artist here, Adrian Stimson. I think he’s from the Kainai nation, but he’s from Treaty 7.
Reneltta Arluk:
I think he’s from Siksiká.
Patti Pon:
Is he from Siksiká? Oh, sorry Adrian. For years he has said, “I don’t need any more allies. I need accomplices.” And I would even go so far as to say, we actually need co-conspirators. Who’s interested in changing the system, however we got to do it? That’s what we need right now. But I get that you got to start somewhere. And being an ally, trying to place yourself in our shoes, trying to feel that discomfort, that’s the start. And then, come walk with us on that journey to co-conspiracies. I love that.
Shivani Saini:
In terms of allyship, maybe just to wrap up some thoughts on allyship because there are other aspects to the discussion we want to get into as well. I had asked like, what our allies should do. I would love to know what are our allies… From your perspective, what are our allies getting right, and what are they getting wrong?
Patti Pon:
I think what they’re getting right is understanding and recognizing the necessity for the change, right? So that, there’s a whole readiness for change that we talk about in systems change. That’s a good thing. The challenge then becomes… So readiness for change, and then what do you do? What do you do is, recognize that your organizational journey cannot happen unless there’s a personal journey for each and every single person inside that organization to be a part of. So you can’t just report to me and say, “Oh, we have the right representation on our stages,” or… That’s great, I’m glad, and I look forward to the day when you might have over-representation. However, then as you learn more, you do more.
And so don’t just sit in on Calgary Arts Development town halls on commitments to equity, actually go inside your… What’s the training you’re doing, what’s the learning? What are you offering people as resources? And there’s a couple of resources that I sent over that we can put up whenever it’s appropriate. Continue to learn, continue to be curious, and then apply it. Again, individual and organizational journeys have to go hand in hand. And I think that’s sometimes what people get wrong is, they’re just going to go through the motions. As a funder, right, I can do things. I can ask you what your representation is and you’ll check the box, but you gotta mean it. You gotta understand why it’s there and you won’t, unless you take that personal individual approach and that… So back to, right, our very first question.
Reneltta Arluk:
Yeah, no, a hundred percent. And I think it’s really important to just say that organizational and personal have to be aligned because, as an Indigenous woman who sits on juries, I can see through those checked boxes. So, it’s not good lying. You’re not a good liar, really, if you’re looking at representation instead of embodiment and actual curiosity. And I think, saying earlier too how about, like, curiosity–be curious, you know? When I look at allyship… I see it on social media, when we look at the war that’s happening in Ukraine and everyone’s wearing the babushka scarves. That to me is anti-racism activism. When I see you posting pictures of things that aren’t related to that, I start wondering how engaged you are in the global conversation of oppression and colonization.
And so, when we were going through the Indigenous Lives Matter, Black Lives Matter, I looked very closely at my non-BIPOC friends and saw them… If I saw them posting actual engagement with conversation and learning, I really value that as allyship. When I saw my non-BIPOC friends and colleagues just posting pictures of books they’ve read, or shows they’ve watched, and they’re not engaged in what’s happening, I go, “Hmm. I wonder how engaged you are with me as a colleague or as a friend.” And I start wondering, who are my friends and who are my workmates, and how well do I know them? And that’s that relational work. When we think about systems… We’re not in a time of complacency. We’re in a time of activism. We have to make decisions to be healthy, we have to make decisions to be alive. And so I don’t think now’s the time to sit back and scroll. I think we have to really be activists in that way.
So in a social media lens, that’s how I’m seeing it. In a more in-person lens, it’s about… it’s really, you have to actively teach yourself what’s going on and ask those questions. And I think the struggle that I’m starting to see a bit more is, these systems work because they work for how they are. And when we’re introducing new systems—which are not new systems—but when we’re introducing new systems, what’s happening is that, it’s learning how to undo what you know, and that’s very uncomfortable and maybe won’t work in the system that you’re currently very comfortable in. And I think that’s that fear of wrong. And so what I always say is: you’re going to get it wrong, just do it. Just do the wrong so that you can learn the right. So that’s like my big offer for allyship.
Kizzie Sutton:
Again, echoing what was said before, at the same time, I’m going to start with the end of the question of, what are some of our allies doing wrong? I’m going to say not calling out microaggressions. I think we, as people of colour, have become so good at tolerating and dealing with microaggressions on the outside, the full impact of what those microaggressions do to us as individuals, what it does to us in our physical health and our mental health… It gets lost when we talk about allyship. Mainly because we’re like, “Oh, Kizzy, that doesn’t matter.” I mean, one of the comments that I got when I was working in an arts organization that I thought was extremely liberal was, and I quote, “Oh, our coolness factor just went up because we hired you.” Huh! You know what I mean? Like there’s certain statements that you’re just like, “Wow, a lovely compliment, that I’m cool because I’m Black?” Like, what are we saying?
And now, me as a professional, I need to smile and nod, otherwise, I become the angry Black woman. So there’s weight that gets put on our shoulders, that if other people of the dominant culture could call them out so that the person who is being inflicted with these microaggressions don’t have to… I think that would be a great step for allies to help out with lifting the weight on our shoulders.
And what they’re doing right? Curiosity. And keep being curious. Keep sitting in that discomfort.
Patti Pon:
Super true. And I think there’s something else, Kizzie, that actually, you just said that reminded me—and I’ll try to do this short because it’s a bit of a shaggy dog story, Shivani. So, one of the things that a great friend, JD Derbyshire, shared with me and I walk with it every day is that, as people of colour or marginalized communities, every day we walk through life and every day we catch arrows, right? I’m the only person of colour. I’m the only woman. I’ve helped increase a factor. People say stupid things to me. They mistake me for the catering staff instead of the attendee at the conference, right? They’re surprised when I don’t have an accent. So every day, I get those arrows. And every day I have to come home and pull the arrows out all by myself, or with the support of my loved ones.
You want to be an accomplice: how about make it so that those arrows don’t come at me in the first place? How about, be a support to me to pull those arrows out? Every time you ask me, because I’m the only person in the room who can help you with an equity statement, or can help you understand, “Why do people get so mad? I didn’t do it. It wasn’t me who did it.” All those, like—by the way, which is an incredibly racist comment. But, so, that’s where the curiosity part becomes so important. But every day: those arrows. And I’m not saying that people in the dominant culture don’t get arrows, but you sure as heck don’t get the arrows that we get. And lately, they’re big arrows. And when we’re asked to help solve the problem, that actually, as Reneltta said, isn’t actually my problem. Go figure it out! Like I’ve had to do for my whole life. That’s what you need to do, that’s what this discomfort means. And I know it isn’t fun, but you know, try getting the arrows every day, and then tell me it’s not fun. And then maybe we can get into a conversation that’s meaningful and really starts to make those changes we need.
Shivani Saini:
Thank you, Patti. Amazing. I love the analogy of the arrows. I’m so glad microaggressions were brought up, just from my own personal perspective. Legit, if I had a dollar for every time a racial microaggression, which is just basically a racial micro-inequity, was thrown my way, I would be a very, very rich woman today, and I would probably be doing this event with you from my beach house somewhere tropical. No joke, no joke there. I would be rich. My personal experience embodies the onslaught of microaggressions. And I’ve heard this expression before, “it’s like death by a thousand cuts.” I also have had plenty of experiences where I’ve actually tried as a racialized person to call out the behaviour to identify it. And then what ends up happening is, I just get destroyed with more arrows. It can be really dangerous for you as a racialized person to call that behaviour out in particular, depending on who it’s coming from.
One of the things that I’ve seen a lot of organizations—and say, specific individuals within those organizations—get wrong is that, when a racialized person, someone who’s Black, someone who’s Indigenous, someone who’s a person of colour, someone who comes from an underrepresented community, is actually taking on the emotional labour of legitimately raising a concern about something that they’ve experienced. It can be… I see this quite often, it can be really easy for those individuals and those organizations to just immediately get defensive. And instead of taking the time to actually listen and understand, it becomes about reacting and ensuring that they’re not actually going to be labelled as racist.
And I want to bring this back to that point about being uncomfortable, because what people really need to do is they need to move away from fear. They need to move away from fear. We all need to move away from fear. Racism, in its… If you break it down to its most fundamental element, it is ultimately a fear of something that is different. A fear of an individual that is different. And that fear and the way that that fear can become the basis, the driving factor behind racial and unconscious biases and then how that behaviour can manifest is like… Oh my gosh, we could talk about that for days. But, you know, it’s so important for everyone, allies that are listening to this and also folks who are racialized, to really become consciously aware of the fear that is driving a reaction, a response to something that might be driving how you want to respond to something that you’ve just heard.
And, it’s important for cultural sector organizations to really pay particular attention to the fact that if you’ve got individuals that come from these underrepresented communities, and more than one individual is starting to raise the same concern about, whether it’s microaggressions or systemically racist behaviour that’s much more overt, that there is a need to pay very careful attention to what’s going on. And like our incredible guests today have said, to be able to get to a place where you’re willing to be uncomfortable so that you can start creating the right kind of change to ensure it doesn’t keep continuing. Microaggressions, you really got me there with that one Kizzie, thank you.
So, we have a little bit of time left and I think what I’d like to do is see if we can also explore what anti-racism means to each of you personally. And I think it would be great to get some of your personal perspectives. Reneltta, let’s start with you. I’d love to get your perspectives on what anti-racism means to you personally. I know you’ve touched a little bit on it, but… As an Indigenous woman, as an artist, as the director of Indigenous Arts at Banff Centre and the creator of AKPIK Theatre.
Reneltta Arluk:
Yeah I mean, there’s a lot of different ways to look at anti-racism in those areas. I mean, the beautiful thing about working in community, being engaged in community, is that there’s a value system. And that you learn your value system culturally, and then you carry those values forward. And then those values systems naturally adapt themselves into the systems that you surround yourself with. And I’m grateful for the teachings that I received in my life, and I continue to receive in my life, and how they can be adapted and applied to it. And then how systems that are systemic, or are oppressive or colonial, tend to not fit into those systems because of the value system.
So I really look at… So whenever I start having conversations with organizations or people that I don’t know very well, I start looking at, “What is your value system, and do we align?” And if not, then how can we have conversations around changing those systems? I really value hearing, “It’s not pie.” I have said in so many rooms, “It is not pie, it’s cake.” It’s a layered cake with lots of flavours and everybody loves cake. So let’s look at cake and not pie. And I don’t know why, and maybe it’s the education system where we’re taught the pie chart. Maybe that’s the ultimate problem, is that we’re taught to divide though our way of thinking, instead of looking at it from a collaborative, inclusive way of thinking.
And so, when we look at community and going into, say, Banff Centre, and doing the work that we’re doing, it’s affording that place of agency and self-determination. So I say Indigenous-led a lot and I say it purposefully, so that other people can start thinking “Indigenous-led” instead of thinking, “Oh, this is our Indigenous arts area under the Banff Centre guise.” And this is, everyone’s here, I’m like, “Hmm, we’re Indigenous-led, which means we’re running systems differently, so our systems are going to impact recruitment, impact production, impact technical, impact programming.” And slowly, in my four years of being there, I have seen some really great change. And I feel like if you don’t embody it, then you’re just progressing a system that will clash. And so, I mean, keeping it short and tight and trying to encapsulate everything in there: value systems, systems that need to change. It’s not pie, it’s cake.
Kizzie Sutton:
Love the analogy of cake ’cause who doesn’t love cake? As long as it has cream cheese icing. [laughs] So for me, and this is going to be a little obscure, but every time I think of what does anti-racism mean for me personally, I think about the fact that I am of Afro-Caribbean descent, living in Canada, which is clearly founded on, based on, systemic principles that lead to racism. But also the fact that I am benefitting from the fact that I’m living in Canada, which is a system that stole the Indigenous lands. And if we want… ‘Cause sometimes we’re faced with, “Well, I didn’t do that. That’s not my fault.” Well, if I’m benefitting, even though I am one of the members of society that is being discriminated against, I too have to recognize that in my privilege, I too have to go through some discomfort of, “Yeah, I’m living on stolen land.” And being a stolen group of people, like, that hits home for me in a way that I don’t know if it hits home for other people. And I need to consistently think, “Okay, Kizzie, how is what you’re doing either perpetuating or not perpetuating harm in communities and spaces where what you really want to do is build them up and encourage?”
And for me, I really like the idea of partnership. It’s not about going into some community and bringing… Like the Christian period, they came over here to “civilize”… Everyone was civilized. There was nothing wrong with the people that were here. Our thought processes were what was wrong. And me being, again, of Afro-Caribbean descent, whose parents immigrated here for the better life, and I’m able to enjoy that better life while still knowing that I’m living and breathing and participating in a system that is oppressive to other people of colour, that really hits home for me. I don’t know, I don’t think I have an answer yet on how I’ve resolved that dissonance, ’cause I haven’t. It’s something that I’m working on. It’s something that I’m dealing with. And I think about the fact that anti-racism hits us all individually and we have to recognize that my journey isn’t going to be another person’s journey, but we can at least share some of the discomfort. So again, move us to that full new system that will allow us all to be able to participate in our fullest way. So a little bit of a unique situation, but that’s one of the things that’s really hitting me.
Patti Pon:
I think that from a personal perspective, sometimes it’s just about getting through the day. It’s coping, right? And so moments like this, where I can have a shared conversation, where there’s not a lexicon. Like we all get it, and we actually have embodied it. That’s a salve, to me. It’s sort of something I kind of have in immersing myself in. So that it gives me the courage to go into that day knowing I’m going to get the arrows, right? And, and so what I look for now is, if I’m asked to join a committee or sit on a board or be a part of an initiative, I use the power of three. And so there have to be at least two other people who are going to be in that circle who either look like me, or they think like me, or I know them to be accomplices or co-conspirators. I need that now. Because in the same way that we’re asking others who maybe haven’t experienced discomfort in the past like I may have, it’s not like it makes it less uncomfortable for me.
I know the rest of my life. I will continue to be in this place of discomfort. It is not going to change in my lifetime, or my work life that I have remaining. However, I hope that there is a shared experience. And so, knowing that, I look to find ways, look for that salve, look for that bandage, look for that moment where I can be in a shared community or in a shared circle. And that, the one thing that will happen in my lifetime is that circle will get bigger. And then we will all understand what our place is in that circle. I think sometimes for organizations who are finding their way, they’re in the circle and that’s awesome, but what they don’t know is what everybody’s place is around that circle. Why you’re there. And so, I try personally to live my life and get through each day, making it clear what I think my place in the circle is, what I hope it is, and then also connecting the others in it to what their place is, and create that exchange.
Conventional colonial systems don’t actually allow for that, right? Granting systems are competitive. You shouldn’t know the other people. You can’t know who the assessors are. We don’t want to tell you why we didn’t give you the grant. It’s so secretive, right? And maybe, if we were a bit open, instead of being like this, if we were like this. So personally, for me, anti-racism is about trying to be like this. And it’s really hard, by the way, for those of you who maybe don’t have to find yourself looking like us in other circles. And so I guess I ask of any of you who are in the dominant culture who watch this—try to be like this with me, or with others who look like me, or who talk like me, and then we’ll get there. And then we’ll share in this discomfort together, and hopefully to a way where we don’t have to have that anymore.
Shivani Saini:
Amazing. Thank you. Such great thoughts that are being shared. I’m so appreciative, so grateful to hear all of these different perspectives right now. And I also very much feel like the conversation has been a really nice salve as well. I wanted to see if there were any other thoughts about anti-racism in the cultural sector at large. Specifically, what has changed since 2020, and where do we still need to go?
Patti Pon:
I guess for better or for worse, what has changed? Not a lot. And I hesitate, because I see steps. But there’s that adage about two steps forward, three steps back. And maybe it’s because it speaks to the complexity of anti-racism and trying to create these new systems. To be fair, there are way more people who try to understand, who come from dominant cultures. My staff, my team at Calgary Arts Development are superheroes when it comes to really trying to see the world from 360 degrees, and I really appreciate that. So, I shouldn’t be so glib to say, “not a lot.”
It’s the individual journeys that I would say that have really changed since 2020, that more and more people are recognizing, “I have a part to play as a person, let alone whatever organization I might be a part of,” so I think that’s a really good thing. And then in terms of your question, where do we need to go, it is: continue to be curious, continue to be vulnerable, continue to have humility, which as Reneltta said, these are not new things in other systems, in other ways of being. So that’s where that curiosity comes into play. Everybody go read Jesse’s book or go listen to his audiobook. Start somewhere, take the course at U of A. Come recognize the Lunar New Year and what that might mean to the majority of the world, by the way. There are more people who celebrate Lunar New Year than celebrate January 1st, thank you very much!
But anyway, that’s the world we live in. In the same way that you’re putting the blue and yellow on your Facebook profile, there’s lots of other things that, as both Kizzie and Reneltta have said, you can do. And I would just welcome and invite you to continue to be on this journey, and know that it’s a long journey. So pace yourself. And I look forward to welcoming you as part of the circle, being welcomed into your circle, and sharing in that journey.
Kizzie Sutton:
Yes, maintain that curiosity. And I think, organizationally, it’s about checking in on my experience. It’s about checking in on our racialized staff members, just talking about those arrows. There’s been weights that’s been put on our shoulders additional to the regular arrows that we normally live with. And if you notice a staff member who, two years ago was go-lucky and happy and da, da, da, and now they’re no longer showing the characteristics and personality that you know is truly or traditionally them, I would encourage you to ask, “How are you doing?” And be there to truly listen and see if there’s something that you can do as it relates to race, as it relates to being the shield for microaggressions. There are steps that us as racialized people can do, and there’s lots of steps that dominant culture can do to, again, bring us to a space where we’re not all covered in arrows at the end of the day.
And the other thing I’d like to just highlight as Patti shared: just because we live here in the West, our perspective is not the majority. There are more people that celebrate the Lunar New Year than January 1st. If we let that sink in and resonate, and allow that to be a bit of a compass or a way for us to reevaluate what is normal, I think that kind of curiosity would really allow for people to let go of systems that they thought they knew when they realized, “wait a second, if the majority rules, then what does that look like?” So, yeah.
Reneltta Arluk:
No, this has been such a powerful conversation. But I think what I’m walking away with and what I’m really hearing is that it’s just really, institutionally, the systems are there to help you succeed, but they’re helping you succeed in a way that maybe isn’t actually the right way to succeed. And I think we have to look at success from, “What is success for me?” And individualizing that, like… I was offered to direct a workshop of a play, and I read the play and the play clearly was Two-Spirited and I just read it and I loved the play and I loved the people involved. And I finally just went, “I don’t see myself here, because I’m not Two-Spirited in that way that this story could be brought forward in the best way.” And so I echoed that back and I got such a welcomed response.
And so when we look at leadership, how are you a leader? And is it for you to lead because the opportunity has been given to you or you’ve worked somewhere for 10, 15 years and it’s mandated that you get to rise? But is it really your voice that needs to be risen? And that’s a challenging question of leadership. And I kind of go off the rules of acting where it’s like, the first impulse is not the only impulse. And so it’s like, yes, you’re given the opportunity, it’s your one opportunity… Eh, you’re going to get two or three more opportunities somewhere else where you’re better aligned to use your voice and bring that leadership. And so I don’t… I say yes to a lot of things, because I think that I believe in a lot of things, but I also say no to a lot of things where I go, “I’m not the person for this.”
And it’s like looking at your ego, looking at your place. But when you look at it from the greater circle or as a hummingbird or however, you kind of realize, “I’m still involved, I’m still part of this community, I’m just not the voice that needs to be heard.” And I think once you’re okay with that, it’s a better world, and it’s better for you too, actually. But when you see the systems going, “Well, the chartered agreement says…” or, “The collective agreement says…” then it’s like, does it though? Is that the right choice? And so when we do personal, I really value—I’m walking away with this, Patti—with the personal to the systemic, it’s like it has to be personally driven, and a better understanding. And so that’s where, again, that discomfort and that knowing kind of comes in. So I’m just really grateful for today.
Shivani Saini:
Amazing. I’m so grateful for this conversation. I wish that we had more time. Clearly we could keep talking about the subject and unpack, deep dive a lot more. Patti had shared a few resources. What I’d like to do just before we wrap things up is, just bring them up. Patti, do you want to maybe just say a few quick words? We’ll also put these up on our Creatives Empowered website as well.
Patti Pon:
For sure. Again, I think just in terms of feeding your curiosity and equipping you with resources, Stop Race-Based Hate, which I know Shivani already has up on the Creatives Empowered website, is a really great website. How to recognize those microaggressions, and how you might respond to them so that you understand why they’re there. The repository from Belonging at Berkeley is, while it’s predominantly US-based, so much literature and surveying and research is being done in the area of equity, diversity, inclusion, of language, all those things. This is one repository that offers a number of resources on how to address anti-racism. My hope is someday we might have a similar repository for Canada, but this is a good start. There’s great reading there.
And then the last one, coco-net.org. There’s a particular diagram called The “Problem” Woman of Color. And again, to give you some insight, you may empathize or relate to what’s in that diagram. The thing you need to know about women of colour is, it happens every time. It’s not just a one off. And so it just starts to give you some sense and context for the way in which someone else like me might walk in this world, might be in this world. Even as the CEO of an 18-million dollar granting agency in Calgary. And so, it’s there to serve as a resource for anybody. It’s not only for white people. People of colour, Black, Indigenous, also may find some comfort sometimes in knowing that it doesn’t have to fall on you. That all you gotta do is give them the website and say, “Here you go. Go figure it out.” Thanks very much Shivani.
Shivani Saini:
Amazing. Thank you, Patti. So two of those resources, Stop Race-Based Hate and the COCo diagram of The “Problem” Woman of Color. We have those up on the Events & Resources page of our website. That diagram, by the way, was sent to me by an Indigenous theatre maker in the summer of 2020. And when I first looked at it, I was like, “This is a diagram of my life! Wonderful, thank you!”
I just want to express my sincere gratitude to our three incredible guests today, Reneltta Arluk, Kizzie Sutton, and Patti Pon. Thank you so much for being a part of this conversation and for helping to manifest an idea that I wrote down on a sticky. It has been a fantastic discussion and I’m so happy that we’ll be able to keep sharing this out with the world. Thank you so much to Matt Waterworth, our technical wizard behind the scenes, and just a heartfelt thanks to every single person who has tuned in, and to anyone else that might continue to watch this in the future. Thank you so much. And anytime you’re looking for information, you want to learn more, please feel free to visit creativesempowered.ca. Thank you.
Sarah Taylor:
Thank you so much for joining us today. And a big thanks goes to Shivani and the folks at Creatives Empowered. If you would like to learn more about Creatives Empowered, please check out their website at creativesempowered.ca. There you can find resources, information on training courses and, of course, join or support. The CCE is proud to be a Creatives Empowered ally. Special thanks goes to Jane MacRae.
The main title sound design was created by Jane Tattersall. Additional ADR recording by Andrea Rusch. Original music created by Chad Blain and Soundstripe. This episode was mixed and mastered by Tony Bao. The CCE has been supporting Indspire, an organization that provides funding and scholarships for Indigenous postsecondary students. We have a permanent portal on our website at cceditors.ca, or you can donate directly to indspire.ca. The CCE is taking steps to build a more equitable ecosystem within our industry, and we encourage our members to participate in any way they can. If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please rate and review us on Apple Podcasts and tell your friends to tune in. Till next time, I’m your host, Sarah Taylor.
[Outro]:
The CCE is a non-profit organization with the goal of bettering the art and science of picture editing. If you wish to become a CCE member, please visit our website, www.cceditors.ca. Join our great community of Canadian editors for more related info.

Abonnez-vous là où vous écoutez vos balados

Que voulez-vous entendre sur L'art du montage?

Veuillez nous envoyer un courriel en mentionnant les sujets que vous aimeriez que nous abordions, ou les monteurs.euses dont vous aimeriez entendre parler, à :

Crédits

Un grand Merci à

Jane MacRae

Shivani Saini

Lily Makowski

Hosted and Produced by

Sarah Taylor

Design sonore du générique d'ouverture

Jane Tattersall

ADR Recording by

Andrea Rusch

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Musique originale par

Chad Blain

Soundstripe

Sponsor Narration by

Paul Winestock

Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 058 – Editing Seduced: Inside the NXIVM Cult with Inbal B. Lessner, ACE and Gillian McCarthy

Episode 058: Editing Seduced: Inside the NXIVM Cult with Inbal B. Lessner, ACE and Gillian McCarthy

Today’s episode is the master series that took place on January 12th, 2021, Editing Seduced: Inside the NXIVM Cult with Inbal B. Lessner, ACE and Gillian McCarthy.

Seduced: Inside the NXIVM Cult is about women by women. It had women in all key positions, and they took great care in creating an environment for the cult survivors who shared their stories, in which they felt supported before, during and after filming. We discussed the ins and outs of shaping such a complex and sensitive story and the challenges that Inbal and Gillian came across in the edit suite.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE is an Emmy® and Eddie-nominated editor and producer. On her latest project, “SEDUCED: Inside the NXIVM Cult,”  which she co-created with her filmmaking partner, Director Cecilia Peck, she takes on the roles of Lead Editor, Writer and Executive Producer. This four-part documentary series, premiering on STARZ, follows one young woman’s perilous journey through the dark and criminal world of NXIVM, the notorious self-help-group-turned-sex-slave-cult. 

Inbal and Cecilia Peck’s last collaboration was the Emmy-nominated feature documentary Brave Miss World, which debuted on Netflix in 2014. It is the story of an Israeli beauty queen, who was raped seven weeks prior to her winning the Miss World pageant, and her crusade to reach out to fellow survivors while trying to keep her own rapist behind bars. 

In 2019, Inbal edited and co-produced “The Movies: The Golden Age,” executive produced by Tom Hanks, Gary Goetzman and Mark Herzog. This was the latest in her 4-year-long collaboration with the team that produced CNN’s Emmy-nominated “Decades” series. Inbal has edited seven episodes in the series and was nominated for an ACE Editing Award for “The Nineties: Can We All Get Along.”

Inbal’s editing credits include ReMastered: The Two Killings of Sam Cooke (Netflix Original, Dir. Kelly Duane), nominated for an Outstanding Documentary NAACP Image Award, and Autism: The Sequel, (HBO, Dir. Tricia Regan), a follow-up to the Emmy-winning Autism: The Musical (2007). She edited and co-produced the internationally acclaimed, award-winning, I Have Never Forgotten You, about Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal.  Inbal also directed the docudrama Night Bites and was second-unit producer on the HBO/ARTE documentary Watermarks.

Over the course of her career, Inbal has worked in the cutting rooms of directors such as Davis Guggenheim (Teach), R.J. Cutler (“American Candidate”), Kief Davidson and Daniel Junge (A Lego Brickumentary), Jeremy Simmons (“Transgeneration”), Tracy Droz Tragos (Be Good, Smile Pretty) as well as Natalie Portman’s feature directorial debut (A Tale of Love and Darkness). 

Inbal began making films when she was in high school and later produced training films for the Israeli Defense Forces.  At NYU, she was the recipient of the prestigious, merit-based, WTC Johnson Fellowship, awarded to one student filmmaker a year.  Since moving to Los Angeles, Inbal has edited hundreds of hours of non-scripted network and cable television shows. She was also a Visiting Professor at UNCSA Film School, and a mentor in the Karen Schmeer Diversity in the Edit Room Program.

Gillian McCarthy is an accomplished editor whose creative style combines compelling storytelling with a cinematic sensibility.  Her feature documentary credits include the Oscar-nominated Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience, Girl Rising, and Above and Beyond: 60 Years of NASA. Her television credits include work for ABC, PBS, Showtime, STARZ, Discovery and OWN.  She learned her craft working in the most precise form of visual storytelling, the television commercial, editing countless national campaigns in New York and Toronto.  A dual American and Canadian citizen, she lives in Los Angeles.

À écouter ici !

The Editor’s Cut – Episode 058 – Editing SEDUCED: INSIDE THE NXIVM CULT with Inbal B. Lessner, ACE and Gillian McCarthy

Sarah Taylor:

This episode was generously sponsored by IATSE Local 891, Integral Arts, and the Vancouver Post Alliance.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

We were contracted to do a four hour series, and that was a really big creative challenge of how to distill this very complex world. How much you explain, what you don’t need to explain, what you need to stay the hell away from because it’s- we would take two hours to explain.

Sarah Taylor:

Hello and welcome to The Editor’s Cut. I’m your host, Sarah Taylor. We would like to point out that the lands on which we have created this podcast, and that many of you may be listening to us from, are part of ancestral territory. It is important for all of us to deeply acknowledge that we are on ancestral territory, that is long served as a place where indigenous peoples have lived, met and interacted. We honor, respect and recognize these nations that have never relinquished their rights or solve an authority over the lands and waters on which we stand today. We encourage you to reflect on the history of the land, the rich culture, the many contributions and the concerns that packed indigenous individuals and communities. Land acknowledgements are the start to a deeper action.

Today’s episode is the master series that took place on January 12th, 2021. Editing Seduced: Inside the NXIVM Cult with Inbal B. Lessner ACE and Gillian McCarthy. Seduced: Inside the NXIVM Cult is a series about women by women. It had women in all key positions and they took great care in creating an environment for the cult survivors who shared their stories in which they felt supported before and after filming. We discussed the ins and outs of shaping such a complex and sensitive story, and the challenges that Inbal and Gillian came across in the edit suite. Seduced: Inside the NXIVM Cult is available on Crave in Canada and on the Starz app almost everywhere else. I hope you enjoy.

 

[Show Open]

Sarah Taylor:

Welcome, welcome, welcome, thank you both for joining me today, us today, I’m very excited to talk all things Seduced. I kind of got hooked, by kind of, I really got hooked and I’m very excited to discuss this show and the making of this show. So I want to start off a little bit by just finding out a little bit of about you and where you come from and how you got into the world of editing. So whoever wants to start first dive, right-in!

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

I’m Israeli. Started studying filmmaking and especially falling in love with editing in high school. And then in my military service in Israeli army and then went to film school in New York. And that’s kind of like how my American journey started. My most influential teacher in high school was a documentary editor, probably one of the leading documentary editors in Israel, and it just always fascinates me, fascinated me how to mold random footage into a story. And so while I’ve done, you know,  any kind of genre and anything from wedding videos to narratives and instructional films about explosive in the army to you name it, documentaries have been my focus of my career.

Sarah Taylor:

Awesome. And Gillian?

Gillian McCarthy:

I’m Canadian, I grew up in London, Ontario, and I also went to a high school that had a broadcasting television program and did editing in high school. And then I went to Fanshawe College in London, taking television broadcasting, and I worked at the local television station in the news department while I was there. Then after college, I moved to Toronto to assist an editor in a small commercial editing company that did, for television commercials. That was kind of my post-graduate, experience with the budgets and 35 mil filmmaking and technology that commercials did. I assisted for a while, and then I was lucky enough to help a creative team for an advertising agency, do a pitch, which turned out to be the original Molson Canadian “I am Canadian” beer campaign.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Awesome!

 

Gillian McCarthy:

Then I was 25 sitting doing that and did the sort of beer, cars and communications commercial work. Then I was recruited to a company in New York, and that started my American experience. I did commercials in New York and then just as I was about to get married and move to Los Angeles, I was lucky enough to be introduced to Richard Robbins, who was a producer and writer working mostly through ABC news. We happened, I happened to be moving to his neighborhood in Los Angeles, so we became friends and he hired me to work on a television doc about Bill Bratton’s first year as the LAPD chief of police. We did a few more docs over the years. Then we did Operation Homecoming, which got nominated for an academy award. Ever since then, I’ve been doing nonfiction television and documentary features.

Sarah Taylor:

Fantastic, that’s exciting! I love that both of your stories began with a high school teacher who really had an influence in the editing world. That’s really exciting to hear. Nowadays I think kids are learning younger and younger because the technology is just, we have the capabilities, so that’s really exciting to hear. Now, let’s get onto Seduced. What led you both to this project? I know Inbal you’re the executive producer. Your story probably started much earlier than Gillian’s, but tell us how you, how this project started and how you got involved.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

My producing partner, Cecilia Peck, we’ve done a feature doc together called Brave Miss World, released in 2014 and was nominated for an Emmy. We were looking for another project to work together. In the meantime, I just work as an editor, and she called and said, she has a few ideas and a few things she was working on. One of them was NXIVM. She was actually an intern who worked on Brave Miss World, attempted to recruit her.

She sent her a lot of emails about this woman’s group, and Alison Mack, all these amazing women she must meet and come to an intro and come, there’s mentorship, and networking and women empowerment. Cecilia wasn’t interested at the time and finally said, I’m happy this is working for you, but please stop emailing me. It’s getting too much. About a year later after the emails stopped, she called her up and said, I’m sorry, I just realized I was in a cult and I was under pressure to recruit. They met and she told her her story. Then Cecilia brought that to me and said, I think we have an in. She had already, she had just shot a little reel with this former member.

This one intern introduced her to through three or four other former members. She shot a little footage for a couple hours just to get them on camera. She asked me actually to join her and cut a sizzle reel, like a little presentation. And so we- I downloaded a few things I found online. I had no idea what NXIVM was. I was not following the story in the news. It really took me I have must say months to wrap my brain around what it was and what was wrong with it. I downloaded what I could. Cut that with the footage that Cecilia shot. We were able to go into Starz and pitch it together. I helped with the pitch and in of command there, and eventually got greenlit to do a series. That’s how, kind of, how I got started.

Sarah Taylor:

What was the timeframe from the, you doing the sizzler stuff to getting to greenlit to actually start the series?

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

So I think we, trying to remember, we started working on the pitch and had the first few meetings end of 2018.

Sarah Taylor:

Okay.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Then we got greenlit. We started developing, got greenlit officially April of 2019. The trial I believe started in May that year, the Keith Raniere trial, and then Starz thought and pushed us to make this plan that we would film and edit and be completely done and delivered in about six months. That was not, [crosstalk 00:09:02] a reasonable expectation. We ended up working almost two years and we locked the show in this, this past summer.

Sarah Taylor:

Then did you, you did have to open the lock when you find out the results of what his conviction and stuff, right? You were kind of waiting for, were you waiting for that?

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Well, we were just putting the last finishing touches on episode four.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

It was locked, but we put it in to the end credit.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

We added that information. With couple of the cards, I think we updated them after the most up to date information.

Sarah Taylor:

We’ll get Gillian to tell us your story of being approached to do the show and what your thoughts were when you got to get into the edit suite.

Gillian McCarthy:

I had talked on, to, Cecilia Peck on the phone a bit around the time that they were doing Brave Miss World. I think you might have been making it from a feature to a series or something, but it didn’t really work out. Then she contacted me to come in to talk about this series. And so I came in and met with Inbal and Cecilia in at little edit room. They said, do you know anything about cults? I had just, I worked on the Bikram film earlier that year. I knew a bit about cults and they showed me the reel. I don’t know if reel is the same one they pitched to Starz, but they showed me the sizzle, which, and then I was wow, that’s a crazy story. Then I started in October of 2019 originally scheduled to work through the end of January 2020, but ended up going through April or May? Of 2020.

Sarah Taylor:

I noticed that you had a big importance of the team of the series is to be female led. Why was that important from the creative standpoint, and to keep this series female led. I kind of want to know the thought process behind that and how it worked out for you.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

We had experience from Brave Miss World, which is a film about rape and sexual assault. Of interviewing and working with working to tell the stories of sexual assault victims. We learned what needs to be done to create a safe environment on set, and then to tell the stories in the most respectful way honoring the trauma and not exploiting it, or sexualizing it. Cecilia, and I are both women. It happened that both our network executives were women and, definitely on set, we felt that a female, either a complete female crew or a female heavy leaning crew, was going to help these women and former members open up and feel safe to share. What we didn’t expect is that, and that’s a little anecdote, that a lot, our crew members, it was their first time working on an exclusively female crew.

It was like an unusual experience for them too. They started sharing things and they were like the vibe was just so different for them. Nobody was mansplaining. Nobody was kind of taking over. The egos were all a check. I think it was just very special environment that we created on set. Even on days that we had male crew members, we, they were carefully chosen. Everybody, male and female were carefully chosen and trained for sensitivity. We had a protocol of how to approach our subjects. What to tell them when they finish telling their story, not just like, okay, next setup, but, thank you for sharing. This is really meaningful. There’s just a way that we established to interact with these people, so they don’t shut down or they don’t, just to feel supported and comfortable. Then with, as we were hiring the production end post and post team, we certainly made sure people were, had in their heart, a place for this story. Whether they were male or female, they understood it, understood what we were trying to do with it and had the proper sensitivity to tell it.

Sarah Taylor:

You can see that in the final outcome, I feel anyway. Gillian, did you have any sort of take on seeing the footage in the end, edit suite and how that, did that come into a play, that there was a female? Could you, tell, could you feel a difference? What was your take on it?

Gillian McCarthy:

Especially in the interview dailies, you can tell it’s so hard. I can only imagine to be telling those stories in front of a bunch of people. There was, you can tell in the interviews where there’s breaks and there’s, we come back and a reset and think that it was a very respectful and gentle perspective in that way.

Sarah Taylor:

I feel like it would easily reflect into your edit when you see that care being taken in the footage and with the people that’s gonna happen in the edit as well. Now with the actual series, it’s such a complicated story with so many layers, so many things going on, and you had footage from the insider footage from NXIVM itself, you had their promotional videos, you had news clips, you were sourcing from everywhere. How could, how did you wrap your mind around how you’re going to tell this story? It’s going to be led with India’s, her story. You still need to explain what NXIVM is. You have your experts, which I love that you had experts in there explaining what cults were and what, how they were manipulating people and all that information. How did you go about, setting out to make it so concise? So we could all understand, wow, this is how it happens and how it can happen to anybody and understanding all of the ins and outs of a cult.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Well, I kept saying this story could be, if they gave me 10 hours or 20 hours, or 30 hours, I could fill those, no problem. We were, we were contracted to do a four hour series. That was a really big creative challenge of how to distill this very, as you said, complex world, very intricate web of different companies, and sub companies, and courses, and seminars and the lingo, the vocabulary and how much you explain, what you don’t need to explain, what you need to stay the hell away from. Because it’s, it would take two hours to explain. There were a lot of difficult choices in constructing it. The basic structure was there from the pitch, from the beginning, even before we had India involved. So India joined actually pretty far. India is through the process of being in a high control group like this.

Episode one was always about seduction, and getting hooked and what it feels like to join a group like this. Episode two was about, as it turned out to be about indoctrination. What happens with thought reform and what does your brain go through when you’re fed up this information over and over again? And how does it really changes your thinking? The later episode were always about, the heart of darkness kind of like, what does it mean to be in the center, of gravity of this organization? What are the worst kind of crimes and start unpeeling what the worst crimes and experiences of abuse that happen in the inner circle of the cult. Then we initially imagined it as a five episode with the last one being about recovery and healing.And so that was a lot of back and forth, but eventually when Starz insisted on keeping it down to four, which is a really brave choice and also means a lot more people actually going to commit to watching the whole thing, possibly binge it in one night or two.

Sarah Taylor:

Guilty.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

That really constricted us in telling the story a lot more economically and make more choices, but we did come to a compromise with them and had episode four, as some of you’ve seen, as a supersized episode with the kind of healing and-and what these women go through to overcome what happened to them and find their voice again, as the kind of last chapter of this saga.

Sarah Taylor:

That is a lot to put into four hours of content. There’s just a couple questions that I’ll get you to, from the audience. For Inbal. What was your experience writing and editing at the same time?

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Well, if you’re a doc editor, you’re a writer always.

Sarah Taylor:

Yes.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Whether or not you’re credited for it, I’m sure Gillian, anybody will tell you, they always write. I think every single editor we had on the team, as well as any film, any documentary film I ever cut, I probably should have gotten an edit, a writer credit and part of an organization who that advocates for editors to get writer credits. Ultimately there was a lot of writing done in order to really help the audience go through the experience and understand what they needed to understand, but also not think about the thousands of questions they might have. That they shouldn’t be thinking about when they’re watching. There was a lot of choices and careful writing throughout, and I’m glad that Starz agreed to give that credit to myself and Cecilia, but it’s really, I mean, as a doc editor, you’re always writing. You’re just writing from existing warrants. Opposed to making stuff up on a clean piece of paper.

Sarah Taylor:

Totally.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

But what was, what was your experience, Gillian, writing?

Gillian McCarthy:

I think that you might be forgetting how hard you worked. You would spend the day producing, executive producing, directly, setting up doing all that. Then, you would spend the all night editing. It was 24/7 for you [crosstalk 00:19:49]. You did a lot in that way, but I think also for me the, helping the structure, was the story editors. This is the first thing- time I’d ever worked with story editors, because I’d only done single feature docs. Where you’re the writer with the director and some series that were more discreet episodes, so they didn’t have somebody who needed to have that overall awareness of the story arc over multiple episodes. I found that Sarah and Tara were really helpful in structuring that keeping the awareness because you don’t- you dont know where you are sometimes, and everything was cut so wide. The first version of Genessee was probably 15 minutes in itself with everybody’s story. Then you’d start to distill it down. I think if for you, my perspective of Inbal’s work was that she had two jobs and worked twice as much.

Sarah Taylor:

Wow, you were two people. A question that also came for Gillian was there a piece of footage that you really loved, or part of the footage that you really loved that you had to let go? Which you mentioned the Genessee was 15 minutes long, so you did obviously have to pair back a lot of stuff to get to what we have now. Was there something that you were really upset or kind of sad that had to leave?

Gillian McCarthy:

The one thing that I was sad that had to leave was when they took India back to Silver Bay and they shot her in the winter, and she went into the auditorium and did a lot of talking when she was on the stage and talking about her experience in her promotion ceremony. We’d done some inter cutting with what we had of clips of the promotions. It didn’t really survive, but I thought that stuff was really good and she was really good in it.

Sarah Taylor:

Got to let them go. Should we look at some clips?

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Cause I don’t know how many people watch the entire series, but it’s towards the end of the first episode you see in India take, the annual retreat, the annual summer camp of NXIVM and it’s in upstate New York. She really makes a decision to confront what happened to her emotionally and physically, and actually go to that place. You’ll see the beginning kind of part of it.

Sarah Taylor:

Just a warning for all of the clips, just a content warning, we are talking about assault and there’s, it’s sensitive subject, so just be warned

 

[Clip Plays]

Sarah Taylor:

Where do we start? I love how you really worked with the mood in that sequence and how it went from, “Yeah, I want to go to V week. Totally. I want to do that.” And then you’re like, “Woomph, nope.” You did a really great job of taking us on the journey, the emotional journey. So would you like to share your thoughts on that clip and why you chose it?

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

It’s definitely my favorite in episode one and one of the favorite overall. I mean, this magic that happens when we start intercutting from her in present day to fragments of archival footage, inside a footage that was shot in that same space, and how that’s such an emotional manifestation of what’s happening inside her head. And it’s one of the first sequences we cut in episode one. And once you saw it, you just knew there was something there that was so special. I think the decision we made behind the scenes, in production, to go there and the fact that we couldn’t get there, that it was the dead of winter and we got a call that it was going to be snowing when we got there. And we’re like, oh, all the curse words you can think of. But then I was like, “No, this will be great.”

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, it was perfect.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Initially we were like, “Oh, it has to look the same.” But the fact that the difference between the beautiful summer images of V week in August versus what’s happening as she’s going back and it’s cold and snowy, and snow is on the ground. And it was freezing to shoot it, but it was really great that we were able to capture this dissonance that’s happening inside her brain and also visually. And then, later in the clip she goes into that auditorium where all the events and promotions and performances and speeches used to happen, and you really feel like she’s sitting there remembering what was going on on-stage while she’s in the audience. And so that was obviously, well thought out, but then it just became even better than what we could imagine in the edit.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. It was very powerful. And you could really feel her emotion that you… Yeah, some of the people are saying like they felt every minute of it. It is so powerful. Gillian, did you have anything with this clip?

Gillian McCarthy:

No. I did not work on episode one at all. I was originally, came in to work on episode two only and then ended up working on two, three and four.

Sarah Taylor:

Oh, excellent. Okay.

Gillian McCarthy:

And never got to one, although there’s maybe a little bit of Jness that when they rebalance the episodes that got pulled on up from two to one. And I kind of feel good about not having to work on one because openings are the hardest thing, like you could just cut forever, forever on getting that, the first 10 minutes in the first episode. There was a lot of heavy lifting in that episode to set up everything, so people could understand it, get to know all the people, not just India, all the other amazing women, understand the cults and the cult experts and that, so.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. Yeah. There’s a lot. And effective, how it all came together. But yeah, so much that, Inbal, you mentioned earlier like even the terminology and the lingo. And here you hear one of the women saying like, “Oh, they called them objectives.” So, I liked how you incorporated in your interviews that they were explaining what it was and it just was so organic that you just kind of got it, you just understood, which is really great. So, kudos to you. Good job.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Thank you. I just wanted to quickly say, again, plans and reality collapse, but originally I was planned to cut episode one myself and have three editors hired to help with two, three and four, but it was budgeted and scheduled that I would cut episode one myself. Well, that did not happen. I was needed on set a lot. When we were supposed to be full time in editing, we had just started filming with India. It was quickly apparent that that was not going to be the case. And we hired the marvelous Caitlin Dixon to work on episode one. And then Matthew Moul. When Caitlin had to leave, Matthew Moul joined us later and really helped shape this episode.

But yes, so much to accomplish in setting up India’s story, the other women, the whole spine of this mother-daughter story, that’s in the heart of the series, and how Catherine took India to the first seminar, and how the guilt that she feels about India going deeper in. This story that wasn’t told even in Catherine’s book, that she actually went on much farther, and then that India ever planned to, and even hosted events in her home and then India followed somewhat reluctantly and then ended up really getting chosen, selected, hooked, but hooked meaning-

Sarah Taylor:

They picked her, right?

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Yeah, exactly. She was targeted.

Sarah Taylor:

She was targeted, yeah.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Yeah. She was targeted to go further in. And Sarah Edmondson actually asked her if she wanted to be a coach, she thought she would be a really good coach. So, once India goes on this coaching path is when things really start getting dangerous. And we needed to do all that and then get India out there as she starts exploring in real time, in veritae scenes, take us on this journey of unpacking and understanding what happened to her.

And Gillian and I talked earlier today and we were saying, the India we met, who we started filming with around October of 2019 is not the same India you see today in press or even the same India that was four months later. She was really going through a real time process while we were filming of understanding, as she said, the difference between what really happened and what she was made to believe happened. And that tension drives the entire narrative. And that took us a while to understand, that the whole series is about the difference between how- what the members experienced and what is really at play, the coercion tactics. And that’s why all these experts are really critical to give you that outside perspective, as the members are trying to explain you their firsthand experience.

Sarah Taylor:

Because I feel like often we’ll just, people will jump to like, oh, well they must be- something must be wrong with that person to get hooked into that. So, to hear the experts explaining it and clearly explaining like, no, no, no, this is how it works, this is how manipulation works. Because there’s other shows that have been things, other things that have been done about NXIVM, but we didn’t get that key, the expert element, to understand what’s happening in people’s minds and how they’re using the language and manipulating the people that are in the cult. Somebody asks or mentions, since India did join the project later, how did she become involved? And then, how did you make it safe for her, so she felt empowered that she could be vulnerable and do this journey on camera of healing and working through all this incredible- incredibly hard stuff?

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

We always wanted to get to a story obviously as producers, investigative journalists, we wanted to get at least one member that was at the core of this cult within a cult really, of DOS. And it became apparent that nobody was going to talk to us before the trial is over. So, our goal was to get women that were in, that would feel empowered enough to, after all that power was taken from them, would feel empowered enough to share their story.

And in the meantime, we were just really working hard at getting other aspects of the story. And we realized that Catherine Oxenberg played a major role in that story. And we had planned to interview her. We did interview her just to get her perspective and kind of her perspective as a former member, as somebody who had a daughter that went really far into it. And what did she do publicly to expose and bring the cult NXIVM to an end, really. And I think once we talked to her, she saw what our team was about, what was our perspective, and she appreciated our point of view.

And India at the time was still working on her own healing and deprogramming. And I think, she was just getting ready to share her story and she wasn’t sure whether that’s going to be a book, which she also did, or a TV show or a documentary, or. I think because of our relationship, the relationship we built with her mother, she felt comfortable meeting with us. And then once she saw what we had put together up until then, she really decided to join us. She felt we would do justice for her story and treat it the way she wanted it to be told, tell it the way she wanted to be told. So, we worked with her, but we let her take it as far as she could at any given moment, meaning, the first time we flew to Belgrade and filmed with her, I personally didn’t even know that she was sexually abused, nor did I ask. So, that had to come from her and she initiated how much she wanted to share.

And then she’s the one who said to Cecilia like, “I want to show that healing and deprogramming.” And therapy is complicated. And talk therapy for example, talk therapy was very triggering for her because NXIVM was a lot about the DCMs and talk therapy. So, she invited Cecilia to film that buddy therapy session that you see in episode four. So, it was really letting her lead the way and take us on this real journey of what she was willing to share and show. But she was an open book. And she started remembering more things. I know Gillian has a story about can we learn more things from her as we were going through it.

Gillian McCarthy:

Where I was just recalling that, I think episode two or three had gone into the network, maybe, at least once and Inbal, you stopped by the edit room and said, “Well, India just told us about the situation where Keith would make her pull over and take more vulnerable picture, more vulnerable picture. And we didn’t know this and you’re not going to ask like, “Oh, how bad did he get?” She just offered that up. And it was like, okay, so we’re going to go. I mean, obviously they did multiple interviews with her to talk about things and that just opened up other paths and other memories and talking about more stuff. So I think, the first day I started involving, Cecilia weren’t even there because they were on a plane to Belgrade to go shoot with India, and that was the first time they had done that interview. And then-

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

That trip was confirmed the night before. It all happened very fast.

Sarah Taylor:

Wow. And so how much editing did you do before you made that shift where you had to change the structure of the series to really be driven by India’s story?

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

I started working and laying out some sequences for episode one and actually laid down sequences for the entire series, sort of things that we didn’t know where they would go yet. And you know, we had amazing scenes that we shot during the trial. We initially thought that the trial was going to be the spine, the narrative spine of the series, and that you would learn more and more about what happened inside NXIVM as the trial unfolded. And we had these other really brave former members who sat inside the courtroom and then had interesting reactions outside about what they experienced inside the courtroom, where we were obviously not allowed to film or record anything. So, we had started cutting all these scenes and started imagining what it would be like animating some of what happened inside the courtroom in order to kind of utilize it.

And then when we got India, we just thought, oh, it’s just another voice added to this chorus and we’ll just figure out how to weave her hand in. But it quickly became apparent that she had to be the narrative spine that would get you from beginning, middle and end, from the moment she joined till the time it all went down, that she was one of the last people standing, she stayed there really until the bitter end. Maybe not as far as dancing outside his bell-

Sarah Taylor:

That scene. Oh, my word. Like, what are you doing?

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Not that far, but almost, very close to that. So, once we realized she had to be this spine, we had to completely take down the board, take down the storyboard, put new cards and reimagine it around her story. But there was a lot of stuff already in place and done that we just kind of started weaving around.

Gillian McCarthy:

You feel like the other women like Naomi and Tabby and Ashley, although their stories are part of it and we had that to work with too and a lot of that stayed in. But their experiences really, I think, help and support India’s. Like, how do you get into that? One of the most affecting things for me is when Naomi is talking about how if you are in a room and everybody’s saying something and you don’t feel the same way, how do you stand up to that? And are they wrong? Are you right? And that filled it out too, a lot.

Sarah Taylor:

One question here, did you have any concerns or worry about knowing other documentaries were being made about NXIVM while you were crafting this one? Did you think about that or did you just do what you needed to do?

Gillian McCarthy:

I think it was six or eight weeks after I’d started that somebody was like, “Oh, HBO’s doing a 10 part doc.” I was like, “Well, what are you going to do?” It’s a different perspective too.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

I mean the most fascinating thing, we locked the show before they started airing. So, at that point we were done with the hard work and just sat down and enjoyed the show. But it’s fascinating how the approaches and the end result is so different. I mean, I was worried that it would be the same or redundant, but. We didn’t know anything, obviously with documentary, but most film productions, you sign all these you confidentiality agreements, and you’re supposed to be really tightlipped about what you’re doing. So, we didn’t share anything about what we’re doing, neither did they. So, until they dropped their trailer, we found out about their air date like everybody else. We didn’t know that they were not even going to go into the trial in season one. We really had to stick to our own lane and do our thing.

We had- we respect them as filmmakers. We were working side by side, outside the courthouse. We had an understanding that we would share some experts. Like if somebody’s an expert on a call, it’s fair game that both projects would interview them. But with former members and main characters, we try to stay away and not approach the same people that we knew were already working with them, if that makes sense. So yeah, I think, at the end of the day, there were something like 17,000 members that went through NXIVM. So, that’s 17,000 stories. And there was coercion and trauma, I think, on almost every level, even those who were involved for a short time. And I just think there’s a lot of stories to tell, and the more are told the better it is, because it just helps people understand coercion, coercive control and unpack this unbelievable story.

Sarah Taylor:

Totally, yeah. Wow. Another question here, which I think will take us into maybe the next clip. Did you have to go through all the modules to understand how NXIVM worked? Did you take the time to watch all their videos to really understand how it worked?

Gillian McCarthy:

I don’t think it would be possible.

Sarah Taylor:

There’s a lot, right?

Gillian McCarthy:

I mean, we only had what we had and we didn’t have much material. I guess people got stuff in their classes, like papers and stuff. Like Keith says in one of those interviews, he’s like,”We have thousands of modules.” But to me, the gist of it was what it was actually teaching didn’t really matter. I mean, to me it was like, it was an MLM. So it wasnt-, you weren’t ever designed to get fixed or win or develop. You might feel like you were, but they were always going to be moving the bar, so. Other than the idea that your life issue,  that you were inherently broken, that they would instill into you. What they would do to fix it, didn’t really matter to telling the story.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

I remember we did take a lot of time talking to the former members. I personally, I made Tabby perform [miniem 00:45:03]. Not personally on me, but on our co-producer Morgan Poferl. And I filmed it with my phone. I was trying to figure out how that would play. I wanted to understand the hook, the draw. Because you see so many people that went so far and so you were like, wait, but what did they say? What’s the secret? What was so positive? What was the one thing that got you hooked? So yeah, there wasn’t a lot available in terms of material. NXIVM team was very protective of their copyrighted, patent pending materials. Everything was locked up. It wasn’t like people took copies of the curriculum home. Even the coaches, you were not allowed to take it out of the center, it was always locked. It’s not like there’s a ton of material available online. And frankly, we didn’t have videos of all the modules. We have very little and we did the best with the most of it.

But Cecilia and I did have, and Morgan had long conversation with the former members to understand the teachings and what the structure of the classes were and what exactly they learned or remembered, or. It’s like a word salad. It’s just that an attack and that’s part of the tactic. You get numb because all these words are just, it’s an over saturation to your brain. But I think our job as editors and that’s what Gillian is brilliant at, is to find the one line, the one moment where you’re like, okay, in that ocean of words, that’s the one thing where they hook you or where the implant is starred into your head, that will later pay off or later build into self-hatred, or this misogyny. It wasn’t as clear as it is in Seduced, right? It was veiled in a lot of other bullshit. So that was our job, to find those moments, that in five seconds you could understand what was really happening as opposed to what they thought was happening.

Gillian McCarthy:

It was also, I think, where the people involved because such a slow build. They didn’t start out saying you’re going to go to this SOP thing and have to wear a jockstrap on your head. That build. You started with the introductory courses and then they could see who would accept, how far you could go. You’d fill out the form and they’d be able to see who they could push. And just working on it for five or six months, you’re not getting that slow build, so you look at something and go, this is nuts, because you’re coming in with a perspective. And then their point is to have you have no perspective. Anything outside is not valid. It’s only what we’re telling you in here is the valid thing.

Sarah Taylor:

They get you to trust the process and trust the people. And then, yeah, totally.

Gillian McCarthy:

That said, the production did say there was people available for us to talk to if we felt like we were getting… There’s a lot of traumatic stories and to listen to that all day is difficult.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, that was one of the questions is like, did you have to take a step back? And I know Inbal mentioned when we talked before this, that you had put together supports for your team for that case. If you’re feeling triggered or you need to talk something out, here’s something to help you. So, why did you feel like that was important? I think a lot of series and documentaries probably need to have that in place.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

I do think it’s an important conversation that needs to be had. And I’ll just mention quickly that I’m on a brand new mental health committee that we started at the Alliance of Documentary Editors, the ADE, which is an organization for doc editors. And we realized early on that we needed to provide a professional support for the people on camera. I mean, that was a no brainer. I can’t… I can be nice and supportive and as kind as I can be, but I’m not a mental health professional. And when somebody’s triggered or having really scary, suicidal thoughts, or really severe PTSD because of what they’re decided to share on camera, I need to make sure they have a professional standing by to help them before, during and after filming. So, that was a no brainer. The network didn’t completely understand it. So, we actually had to raise the funds ourselves to make that happen.

And then when we started editing, I just remember this one day, Roxy who used to be my film student and then was a post BA and eventually was promoted to assistant editor, but she did a lot of logging. And I remember walking the hallway and behind the closed door, I hear her yelling at her screen, like “What the hell!” And…

PART 2 OF 4 ENDS [00:50:04]

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Screamed, like what hell? And I was like, “Roxy, what happened?” She’s like, “Why are they staying? How they’re not getting up and leaving, like what is happening?” And so in our weekly post meetings, we would try to discuss those things.

And then Cecilia and I decided to make the same services that were … mental health services that were available for the subjects, also to the crew. So if somebody felt like … Tracy Layman, who also helped with watching some of this stuff, and she said, “Sometimes I feel like I need to take a walk, because my brain is scrambled. I’m starting to not know what’s real or not.” And I was like, “Okay, we need to provide that same help to people on the editing team who are getting … ” I don’t want them to be brainwashed by Keith from watching this footage.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. No kidding. And so Gillian, did you take breaks and did you think about that? Were you mindful of that you had that option to seek assistance if you needed it or?

Gillian McCarthy:

Well, they told me. I mean, I didn’t take advantage of it, but you can’t just drive a highway all day. So you’ve got to do something else. It’s like, maybe I’m just going to take a look at somebody else’s interview you or go look at the news archive for a bit or go read the trial transcript. There’s not really a break, but it’s … Or just go to the lunchroom and get a donut.

Sarah Taylor:

Sugar always helps.

Gillian McCarthy:

Always. You can’t go wrong with a donut.

Sarah Taylor:

You also mentioned at one point an organization FACT, I think you said?

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Families Against Cult Teachings. That’s the organization, the 501c3 organization we partnered with that would accept the donations. And they managed the fund of therapy for the NXIVM survivors. And Starz made a very generous donation to it, to keep supporting them through the release. Because the release became another trigger. Now they didn’t just share with our a crew, but also shared with the world.

And sometimes you have to bend the rules for when you do these difficult projects. And I remember we invited … And Gillian met them several times. We invited some of the former members and then the others to the edit room. And we would share sequences with them. We want them to feel like we really embrace them. We care about how they feel about sharing their story. We care about making sure that their perspective is represented truthfully.

It was very complicated. I think I underestimated how much of my work was caring for our subjects. Interacting with them, caring for them, considering them. All those things was quite consuming.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. It’s so important. I think sometimes we lose sight of that in the doc world, that these people are sharing them. And we need to be very, very delicate with that. And so I hope more and more productions do things like this. And for the post crew for everybody. Because it’s heavy. Even watching it like, oh, take a break. I’m going to drink some water or whatever. Right? So I think, yeah, thank you for doing that.

Gillian McCarthy:

There was not a lot of potential to be … I mean, not exploitative, but as you could see, it really was a TMZ moment. Especially when Catherine did her- went public with it. And India had been through the ringer with that. And it was sensationalized and it needed to be looked at. Because this happened to a lot of people. Was there 150 people in DOS?

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Yeah.

Gillian McCarthy:

All smart.

Sarah Taylor:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Gillian McCarthy:

All of those people were super smart and driven and focused. And that’s why they were chosen.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Gillian McCarthy:

And deceived.

Sarah Taylor:

Mm-hmm (affirmative). Well, shall we watch another clip? We have a clip from episode two, the JNESS tracks.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

This is really the heart of the indoctrination. There was a lot of stuff in NXIVM teachings that looked legit. And when we really dug into it, we decided, Cecilia and I, that the gender-based programs were really the core cause for what ended up happening in DOS. And how they changed people, perception about gender and really made the women hate themselves. This is just a little snippet of how we had to distill that down to a little tiny clip.

 

[Clip Plays]

Sarah Taylor:

In a distilled three and a half minutes, hearing them say like, “Oh, yeah, monogamy is not … ” Just all those lines that you’ve picked to explain. Yeah. Like somebody just put, it makes your blood boil. It does. And like, ugh, there’s so many elements to it that you’re like, how is this- how is this happening? Especially right now, how did this happen? Give us some insight on what you chose and how you chose to shape this.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

So we needed India by the end of episode two, to accept a membership in a slave master sorority. Now we have 90 minutes from beginning to that point. In about an episode and a half to get her there. And so we had to distill five years of her in NXIVM with all the indoctrination and many programs that we don’t even mention. With her being on the coaching path and trying to advance on the coaching path. And maybe figure out how to make it a sustainable career.

And what she’s hearing along the way. We really realized that, as I said before, the gender-based programs were the most harmful in terms of how it changed her thinking. And JNESS was in existence for years. And Naomi took JNESS classes here in LA. So they had- The curriculum was coming down from Keith and then distributed confidentially. Or like with secret kind of … Like never just emailed. But then read on conference calls or in different forums around the country. And in some places in other countries, as well.

What came from him and eventually at the end of the clip, you see where he gets to. Is like, okay, rape is not really a rape. And the victim is really the abuser. And you want to make sure that by the time you hear that, you can understand how somebody can be susceptible to accepting it.

And it’s still like, as somebody commented on the thread here, makes your blood boil. And it’s like, there’s no way. But hopefully we gave you enough clues where you could see there might be a way. Because anything that makes you jolt or want to run away, they told them that’s exactly how you need to feel. If you have the urge to bolt out of your seat, you’re doing the work. You’re doing the hard work. You are opening your mind. You’re not accepting anything as a given. You’re really fighting what they call indoctrination, which is the way you were raised, the way you were indoctrinated as a child. You challenging your perception of the world to accept this other things.

And so they kind of used their instincts against them. And that eroding of instinct is what eventually leads India to accept this membership in DOS. And so that was really important to lay it out gradually. But also very concisely.

Gillian McCarthy:

It makes you wonder if there was a huge game plan from the beginning that they … I don’t know that they were all that clever. But to start with JNESS and roll it into the tracks. Which they were called intensives for a reason. That they would take people, make you go to Albany, usually. I think most of them were in Albany. And spend 12, 15 hours a day in these rooms, listening to this stuff with minimal food.

And I know from some of those testimonials we had, in the B roll, people were talking like it’s 11:30 at night, it’s midnight. After they spent this day, they were required to go and record their thoughts on it. And be coached into what to say, as well.So It’s a physical breakdown, as well as a mental breakdown. But JNESS was a gateway, for sure.

And the last clip of Keith is government evidence, right? That was in- came from the FBI. That one I watched. And that’s hard to take from top to bottom. Nancy Salzman is there hitting record and setting it up. And they’re all sort of … The first line DOS women are, can’t really tell, are sitting around the table, nodding and agreeing.

If they did even say, like, I don’t understand, it would just be dismissed. And Kelly said that about JNESS, the tracks that she took. Where she was like, if you had anything to say, they’d be like, “No, you’re wrong.” You were supposed to discuss the curriculum, but there was no real discussion. You were told what to think.

Sarah Taylor:

Was there any challenges in putting this together, the edit of making this concise? Giving us that information on how- what they’re telling the people to believe to get to that point where we hear Keith say the victim’s the abuser? Did you find that clip and think, “Okay, this is how I’m going to … ” And this is like … How did you get to that stage of piecing it together?

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

I think the biggest challenge was letting go of anything that wasn’t directly informing India’s through line. There was a lot more things and stuff. And seeing a lot of the other key players kind of in moments where they’re overwhelmed or kind of this gazed look on their faces as they’re like totally brainwashed, as Gillian said. They would make them sit at the end of a really long day and be a PR machine for spelling out, again, everything they learned that day. And which I think is a really dangerous part of this, how they make all these members be PR machines for the organizations.

So I think we just had to be really thoughtful about what India’s experience was and only use the pieces that informed her story and her experience and just kind of bravely let go of everything else.

Gillian McCarthy:

It was, I think originally the concept of the JNESS groups, which as Inbal said, were held. You had your friendships where you had your group of women that you would hang out with once a month, rolled straight into the tracks. And that was a longer sequence. There was this process of splitting that up and moving part of it to episode one and seeing what made sense with episode two. It went through a lot of iterations.

And then I think we watched it once and then we rolled straight into the SOP, which was the men’s group like JNESS. But at a certain point, it all just … you just become numb to it. Because it’s hard to differentiate on just if you’re just going to watch it once.

Sarah Taylor:

Well, another component that you used a lot in the series was animation of the reenactments of moments in India’s story. The next clip that we have is from episode three, and it’s the branding sequence. Which again, I’m going to give a content warning, because it is intense.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Obviously, there was no footage that we could use. It was such a tentpole- important part of the story. And to really understand how they willingly and knowingly went into that room to be branded. We wanted to make sure people understood the context, how they made that choice under coercion, but still a choice. And what actually transpired in that room.

 

[Clip Plays]

Sarah Taylor:

How was that to put together?

Gillian McCarthy:

I think that the tone and the texture that Elyse and the people at the animation brought to it, transformed it. I’d like to just recognize that.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

There’s a good story behind it. When India joined as an executive producer, she was really … her first film. And she kind of fell in love with the process and started watching and binging a lot of documentaries. And so she would say, “Oh, watch this. And what do you think about that?” And so Cecilia and India and I would start binging on the same docs over the weekends.

And she watched … One weekend, I got a text. She watched Miss Americana, the Taylor Swift documentary. And so then Cecilia watched it. So I had to watch it. And so I watched it. And it’s a beautiful doc. And there’s a little sequence in it about a court case that Taylor was involved in when she was suing for a dollar somebody who sexually harassed or assaulted her. In any case, they couldn’t shoot in that. They didn’t have footage from that court case of that courtroom. And they just used this amazing, beautiful, very subjective illustrations that looked like nothing I’ve really seen before.

And so I contacted the producer of Miss Americana, whom I worked with before. And I said, “You have to give me the contact. We need to illustrate all these court room moments.”

Sarah Taylor:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

That’s back when we thought that was going to be the through line. And she connected me with Elyse Kelly. She’s a DC-based animator. She’s just a wonderful, beautiful person and an artist. And it just became better than what we could have imagined ourselves. Every frame was very well thought out. Again, from the texture to the choice of colors, to the composition. There were key moments in the story that we didn’t have any footage or photos. Well we’re not going to do re-creations. We were really stuck with trying to figure out how to visualize that and still tell this important story.

And it wasn’t something we had budgeted for or really planned going into this project. And animation is expensive. Luckily, Starz supported once they saw what Elyse can do and they understood our vision for it and understood the necessity for it. We really had to fight almost like scene by scene. Like, we really need this illustration and this animation. They’re like, “Okay.”

The branding was number one on the list. We knew that we had to tell that story and we knew we are going to have to come up with the money to do that. But I think that the challenge was how do you show these moments that are so revealing, traumatic and not make it look like porn? Tell it really from the perspective, from the point of view of the victims and their trauma.

And the goal was we worked with Elyse to make it like a visual manifestation of India’s memories.

Sarah Taylor:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

And kind of like you saw in V Week, as she’s going through the reception area and seeing those people still there. That should have give you the same feeling like she’s remembering these shreds of images and voices.

And we had one visual reference of what that whole branding could have looked like. But we mostly flying blind. We had to just come up with this world, but from the details that India gave us. So place, it was important to place the phones recording it. Because you see later that Keith said you have to videotape it from different angles to create more collateral. We wanted to make sure that was clear. That they knew they were being filmed with multiple devices. And some of the pod mates had to hold the phones and tape and record them. And then get on the table themselves and let their friends tape them.

It’s really so wild to think somebody would willingly go through that. I don’t know. It’s kind of hard to put into words, but when it all-

PART 3 OF 4 ENDS [01:15:04]

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

I know it’s hard to put into words, but when it all came together and as I’m sure people on this seminar know, you don’t get this final animation day one, right? You get a sketch and so to see the process evolving to finally both, the amazing sound design work, that was done by Snap sound, the team from Sweat Snap sound and the animation work with India’s voice on camera. So with really all the elements kind of pulling together.

The reaction on her face as she’s watching that YouTube video that they showed them, it really builds a certain feeling that we wanted to make sure you get the horror of it and relate to her and the other victim who’s anonymous. Who’s telling you, “well, they told us one thing, but then it was something else.”

So this is the whole tension between what they thought it was going to be and what it actually turned out to be, which is so horrific and I think for me personally, the fright experiment that appears in episode two, we didn’t show you that clip, but they set women in front of a screen and showed them both clips from movies and real videos of cartel beheading women, and recorded their brain reaction and, put a video camera in front of their faces to record their facial expressions as they’re watching it.

It’s like a crazy Clock Orange moment, and for me, that is the most horrible thing for various reason that I ever seen and I saw the clip of the beheading and we used it in a way, but, it took the branding to move the justice system. So that’s why this is so important. Without the branding, there could have still been NXIVM today. So that’s the line he had crossed. I feel like he crossed it a million times before, but in terms of law enforcement, that had to happen for people to pay attention. For it, to be, a front page photo on the New York Times and for people to finally take them down. The branding wasn’t a prosecutable crime, but it took that to bring down NXIVM.

Gillian McCarthy:

I mean Danielle Roberts still has her medical license, right?

 

Sarah Taylor:

What?

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

There’s hearings now that have been delayed because of COVID, but she’s about to lose it. It’s under hearing now.

Gillian McCarthy:

But the branding in itself wouldn’t have brought NXIVM down if it didn’t turn out to be his initials. And at that point when they were getting branded, and from the series India, 100% believed it was even when she was told straight to her face, what it was. She simply did not believe it until she heard it from his own mouth and I think from the interviews from other people, they had no idea.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

When we did research into other sex trafficking organizations, that’s not like an unusual thing to do marking your slaves, marking the women with tattoos, with brands. That’s actually something other sexual offenders and sex trafficking organizations or men sex traffic women, they do that. They mark their women in some way and it’s incredibly shocking when it happens.

Sarah Taylor:

Wow. Somebody was asking about security. Did you have to do any special security about potential, dangerous things happening by telling the story of NXIVM? Because they are- they had been so powerful over the course of the time they were on.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Yes, it’s hard to think about it now because now Keith is in prison for a life sentence-  more than a life sentence and Clare Bronfman is finally in prison, but that was not the case when we started filming. And most people we talked to actually decided to not go on camera cause they were so afraid of retaliation. Not just what their families would say, but could they be sued by Clare Bronfman? What was going to happen?

They were in an organization that vilified anybody who tried to speak against it. So they knew firsthand or secondhand what happens to those who speak against it. So, it was complicated to get people to tell the story. And once we did, I think the security is probably typical studio security because you get that on other shows where they’re really concerned about their footage for any sitcom too, leaking out. But it was especially important on our project where, nothing was coming out and so when COVID hit in March and we had to move to editing from home, we really had to figure out how we going to translate the tight security and the editing office to everybody taking those drives home. So, it was tricky, it was complicated.

Sarah Taylor:

Another question came up of, how did you get permission to use audio from the jump drives that were taken from Allison’s house and some of the other insider footage, even any of that stuff. How did you get permission to use that?

Gillian McCarthy:

I think a lot of it was exhibits in the trial. It was released by the DEA.

Sarah Taylor:

So if it’s in the trial then that says- I don’t know the rules.

Gillian McCarthy:

Then it’s public.

Sarah Taylor:

That makes sense then, yeah.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Anything that the prosecution releases as exhibit becomes public information cause the U.S. courthouses are like the court of the people.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, yeah.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

So those were in the public domain in a way and then other material was carefully reviewed by a team of lawyers to make sure we have the right to use it and that we’re not violating anybody’s rights, but still with commitment to telling the best story we can. So not everything passed legal review, but a lot of it that I didn’t think would, did. So I felt very, I mean, I remember my first ugly cry was the day that the fair use lawyer called us and told us that he thought everything we used in episode one or one and two was like clear. And I just couldn’t I was like, mind blown could not believe it.

Sarah Taylor:

That’s amazing, yeah.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Was actually crying.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Gillian McCarthy:

I think that also informed who was obscured in the footage and who was left clear. I mean, definitely if they have the trial exhibit with the sort of circle of Keith in the middle with all the people. So if they were in there, that’s, they’re in the public, identified already. So we’re not going to secure them.

Sarah Taylor:

One more quick question here, and then we’ll show one more clip before we run out of time. Did you, either of you do any research on understanding like cult practices and learning how the coursing works and stuff like that, did you investigate, or did you just go with what the footage was or your expert said?

Gillian McCarthy:

The Canadians will know Ticket to Heaven, which is a fantastic film that you should watch and then talks a lot about how cults work. And again, I’ve done a bit of work on the Bikram, so I need about it from that. But, I think the interviews with the experts really did illuminate specifically with this cult where you could say this intake sheet means this, when they say this, if you question, it just shows how much more work you have to do. So-

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Normally I like to not educate myself or read things outside. It sounds like stupid and lazy, but I like to learn from what’s on the screen. So, I don’t want to assume things that are not actually there just because I knew them on other documentaries I’ve worked on, I usually avoid reading things and just try to learn from the material.

And so if something doesn’t make sense, I’ll maybe like go specifically to one area or look for a book or expert, or pick up the phone and ask India or an expert. But for the most part, I try to let the footage inform me as much as possible. So I don’t bring assumptions into it and I try to maintain sort of virgin clean slate perspective. So I’m as close as I can be to my audience, as opposed to like patronizing them, telling them how much I know.

I think it was really important with this series to make it feel accessible, to as many people as possible. The Def stars definitely drove us to make something that felt commercially accessible, viable, palatable to a large audience. And sometimes our instinct were not… Our storytelling style was different. We wanted to reveal things more elegantly or more slowly.

I remember the first cut we screened of episode one at the end of it. Somebody from Deborah told us, “I felt like I could join.” And I said,”yes, mission accomplished. This is exactly what we wanted you to do.” But they said, “no! We want to know that it is evil from moment one. We want to make sure we know who’s the protagonist and antagonist and set that up really clear clearly and tell you along the way.” And so that was really tough to like change our perspective and understand the value in that way of revealing it and really letting the tension between what you learn from the experts as you go along and what you don’t learn yet, to the moment they going to say that’s makes the job of the interview is the subject a lot harder.

You put a lot of responsibility on their shoulders to explain to you their perspective, despite like I’m telling you, there’s all these red flags I’m telling you that this is evil, and I still need to believe this woman that she didn’t see any of that. That She thought it was good and so that I think was super challenging.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. That’s a really hard balance because you don’t want your subjects to look like a fool where if the audience is smarter, but I could see how you could watch a cut and be like, yeah, I want to be a better human. I want to do that too. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Such a fine balance.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Yes, it was.

Sarah Taylor:

That’s tough.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Should we quickly watch the other-

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, so we have the… this is a really great sequence that Gillian is famous for I’d say. Is going to be extra famous for.

 

[Clip Plays]

Sarah Taylor:

The music. How did you decide that piano playing was going to be like, that is just, yeah.

Gillian McCarthy:

We had this footage of him playing and they recovered it and he stopped and started again. So I kind had it twice, which made it convenient. And I came across it and knew that it existed. And then when I ended up on 104 and we had this had been structured because of Tara, one of the story editors had, and they had structured it with the people gushing about him on stage with the arrests. But it… the gushing on stage had already been seen in episode one. So it was reiteration of that, and I remember talking to Inbal, cause I had this idea because I felt like the presence of Keith within that section, wasn’t there because it was the news footage and the archive clips. We hadn’t really seen him for a while too, because by this time he had been put in jail.

So I remember proposing this to Inball because it took some doing and it’s not something that I could just go and spend a couple days and doing and then be like, “no one likes it or it wasn’t a good idea.” So we talked about it. Should we use it in that sequence or somewhere else? So, and then it did take some doing because I wanted to get the reveal, that it was him playing. So I had to like back time and maybe do a little bit of music editing to get that reveal up from the piano that it wasn’t score, that it was him playing that and then to- we even and out in the right points because the person was just shooting and there was only like so many really good shots of him to use. So it took a bit and I did it and you know, it was the typical, everyone was like, “I love it.” Here are notes. That’s not okay. Its great but-

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

But we knew it was genius from the first moment. I mean, people watched a very early version of this episode after Gillian had put this together and said, “this is like the godfather, this is like, just so amazingly put together.” And I felt also like for me, how magic can happen working in a team like a store, the senior store producer had this idea of like Gillian said, inter-cutting, the professing their love as they are led to court. And then Gillian had the idea to add Keith playing the piano.

It had to take that time and all these people involved in that particular team to come at that final result. And then it had to have that, extra sound design to really make it sing and it’s most people who comment like on Twitter or friends, family, people we heard from it’s their favorite sequence of the entire series and it’s just so really beautiful, beautifully, beautifully kind.

It was one of the things they told him that he was a genius. He had the highest IQ ever and he was a Judo Champion and the concert pianist. I know piano, I’m married to a concert pianist who’s also the composer of the series like, Moonlight Sonata is something you learn in your first year of piano, but somehow like that is still impressive enough that he could like fumble through that and still impress everybody. Yeah. It’s not even a great performance of the Moonlight Sonata, but I guess it was enough for them to think it all that.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Yes.

Gillian McCarthy:

I love the fumble at end. He just doesn’t care about these people.

Sarah Taylor:

Biggest challenge that you faced working on this project?

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

For me personally, was my first time as an executive producer showrunner so to balance being used to being the editor and touching everything, to trusting the amazing team we assembled to do their thing and still get the show done under very, a lot of pressure from budget, schedules, network. We had to have every single shoot pre-approved and then record it too, we had to have every week kind of accounted for. There was a lot of show running, heavy lifting that had to be done on a daily basis. And so at the very end, after COVID hit, we all disassembled and became harder to really do the kind of one-on-one interfacing communicating, and I ended up locking the show by myself.

So like, and Gillian helped me towards the end. We brought her back, after she was already wrapped to kind of help us a little, but it was a lot, it was like a lot of as Gillian said producing and managing and helping, watching cuts and giving notes and then at night I would be cutting all night. So it was… I don’t think I want to do that again. Like if I’m a showrunner, then I’m just a showrunner and like, I’m not going to commit to being an editor, full-time editor as well. Like that’s just too much to chew.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. Rightly so.

Gillian McCarthy:

The challenge of wrangling this huge story over the multi episode arc, that’s always challenging. It’s much easier to do like discreet, where things stop and start. COVID was a big challenge too and I just felt like… and it happened at a time where we were getting into the point where you would be working in the room with Cecilia and Inbal in a more direct, because there was a lot of… as they were shooting, we were just cutting and not so that I missed that part of it, that we were separate. I wanted to say this though, for everybody that they interviewed, no matter what happened, So many people said, ultimately that they got something out of NXIVM and that to me was the challenge of… I found that striking. Pretty well all of them said, “it ended like in a mess and it was terrible what happened, but there was something in that that helps them, and they might do it again.”

Sarah Taylor:

Interesting. Was there anything from working on this series that you’ll take to other shows that you do? I guess we know Inbal will not do editing and executive producing at the same time, but what’s something that you’ll take with you from doing this project.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

I mean, we’ve certainly learned a lot in developing this relationship with our subjects and what, what are ethical guidelines that we will continue to follow and develop further? You know what we talked about caring for editors as they’re handling tough subject matter, kind of a long, secondhand exposure to trauma through the footage, I think is really something that we should look at very seriously across the industry. I think the response to this series has just been so positive and amazing. I was addicted to Twitter for the first few weeks to just like, see how people respond and that they really got it all and they were drawing parallels to their own lives and they understand that coercion doesn’t just happen in a crazy sex cult.

It happens everywhere. And they were able to see parallels to their romantic relationships or workplace abusive bosses or our political situation. I mean, there are people this week- last week that were tweeting about, oh, you want to understand people in Mega, you know, mega people watch seduced. I mean, people were tweeting that, making something that’s, that’s palatable to a large audience and make it educational and impactful at the same time. I think that was the biggest challenge and I really feel that we scored pretty high on that front. So I think that will continue to learn in that direction.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. Thank you for taking the time to let us ask questions and explain the process and thank you both so much for taking the time today. It sounds like everybody in the chat is saying, thank you and they’ve enjoyed it and so, yes, thank you again for sharing with us and we’ll look forward to seeing more of you in the future.

Inbal B. Lessner, ACE:

Thank you, Sarah. Thank you so much everybody.

Sarah Taylor:

Thank you so much for joining us today and a big, thank you  Goes out to Inbal and Gillian for taking time to sit with us. A special, thanks goes to Jane MacRae and Alison Dowler. The main title sound design was created by Jane Tattersall, additional ADR recording by Andrea Rusch. Original music created by Chad Blain and Soundstream this episode was mixed and mastered by Tony Bao. The CCE has been supporting Indspire, an organization that provides funding and scholarships for Indigenous post-secondary students.

We have a permanent portal on our website @cceditors.ca, or you can donate directly to indspire.ca, I-N-D-S-P-I-R-E.ca. The CCE is taking steps to build a more equitable ecosystem within our industry and we encourage our members to participate in any way they can. If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please rate and review us on Apple Podcasts and tell your friends to tune in. Till next time, I’m your host, Sarah Taylor,

Speaker 41:

The CCE is a nonprofit organization with the goal of bettering the art and science of picture editing. If you wish to become a CCE member, please visit our website www.cceditors.ca. Join our great community of Canadian editors for more related info.

Abonnez-vous là où vous écoutez vos balados

Que voulez-vous entendre sur L'art du montage?

Veuillez nous envoyer un courriel en mentionnant les sujets que vous aimeriez que nous abordions, ou les monteurs.euses dont vous aimeriez entendre parler, à :

Crédits

Un grand Merci à

Jane MacRae

Alison Dowler

Ryan Watson

Hosted and Produced by

Sarah Taylor

Monté par

Sarah Taylor

Design sonore du générique d'ouverture

Jane Tattersall

ADR Recording by

Andrea Rusch

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Musique originale par

Chad Blaine

Soundstripe

Sponsor Narration by

Paul Winestock

Commandité par

IATSE 891, Integral Artists, VPA

Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 057: The Business of Freelance with Accountant Brian James Taylor

Episode 057: The Business of Freelance with Accountant Brian James Taylor

In today’s episode Sarah Taylor chats with Brian James Taylor. Brian is a retired chartered accountant and also happens to be Sarah’s Dad. Sarah and Brian talk about all things tax. He shares the same wisdom that helped Sarah succeed in her freelance career with all of you!

Brian's future tax clients

À écouter ici !

The Editor’s Cut – Episode 057 – “The Business of Freelance with Accountant Brian James Taylor”

Brian Taylor:

Ultimately, you’re going to have to pay some income taxes. In the first year you start out, your taxes are all going to be due the following April 30th. And if you don’t remember that, then you’re going to come to April 30th you’re going to have spent all your money on capital equipment or just life. So, I suggested to you, I believe that you should sort of set aside 25% – 30%. You’re just a single freelancer. That probably would be sufficient to set aside enough money for taxes and you’d probably find you won’t need it all. And that will allow you to buy the new computer, the new edit suite. Obviously, you may need that stuff anyways, but if you can try and set aside those kinds of funds that should probably do you in good stead.

Sarah Taylor:

Hello and welcome to the Editors Cut. I’m your host, Sarah Taylor. We would like to point out that the lands on which we have created this podcast and that many of you may be listening to us from are part of ancestral territory. It is important for all of us to deeply acknowledge that we are on ancestral territory that has long served as a place where indigenous peoples have lived, met, and interacted. We honor, respect, and recognize these nations that have never relinquished their rights or solvent authority over the lands and waters on which we stand today. We encourage you to reflect on the history of the land, the rich culture, the many contributions, and the concerns that impact indigenous individuals and communities. Land acknowledgements are the start to a deeper action.

Sarah Taylor:

I sat down and interviewed Brian James Taylor, a retired chartered accountant, who also happens to be my Dad. When I first started freelancing, my Dad was the go-to for anything tax related or finance related, and it made a huge difference in my business. So, I thought it would be great to share that wisdom that he shared with me with all of you. I hope you enjoy.

Speaker 3:

And action. This is the Editors Cut.

Speaker 4:

A CCE podcast.

Speaker 5:

Exploring-

Speaker 3:

Exploring-

Speaker 6:

Exploring-

Speaker 3:

The art-

Speaker 4:

Of picture editing.

Sarah Taylor:

Welcome to the Editors Cut, Brian Taylor, also known as my Dad. Thank you for joining us today.

Brian Taylor:

Not a problem. Before we get started on the questions, Sarah, I just want to mention that nothing that we discussed today should be considered to be tax advice that you can rely on. Everybody’s situation is different and unique. And if you’ve got specific questions or issues, you should be sitting down and discussing those with your tax advisor.

Sarah Taylor:

When I started freelancing, I had so many questions. And my Dad was like, so important in that process of figuring out, well, what am I supposed to do? And so I was asking him stuff all the time. So I thought that maybe I would ask Dad these questions now, because there’s probably lots of other people out there that are in similar situations that I am. One of the first questions I have is I remember you telling me at every paycheck I got, that was a freelance check, because when I first started freelancing I was like working on the side, still had a full-time job. And you had told me that there’s a certain percentage that we should always save or be mindful of, for when we are receiving this freelance money. So, what should we think about when we’re first preparing with our first amounts of money that we’re getting as a freelancer?

Brian Taylor:

Well, what I was telling you and telling anybody just starting out in business is that ultimately you’re going to have to pay some income taxes. In the first year you start out, your taxes are all going to be due the following April 30th. And if you don’t remember that, then you’re going to come to April 30th, you’re going to have spent all your money on capital additions, capital equipment or just life. And so, I suggested to you, I believe, that you should sort of set aside 25% – 30%. And I think that’s probably going to be high initially until you really become full-time and have more staff, et cetera. But you’re just a single freelancer. That probably would be sufficient to set aside enough money for taxes. And you’d probably find you won’t need it all. And that will allow you to buy the new computer, the new edit suite. Obviously, you may need that stuff anyways, but if you can try and set aside those kinds of funds that should probably do you in good stead.

Sarah Taylor:

This might be a really basic question, but can you explain what it means to write something off? What does that actually mean?

Brian Taylor:

You have your income that you earn. You had to pay for things. You had to spend money to earn that money. So, maybe you had to do some advertising so, people knew that you were out and about and available for work. Maybe you paid somebody to design a webpage for you. So, if you have spent money in an attempt to earn income those generally you can deduct as an expense. So, when I say right off the cost of the advertising really you’re deducting it. And there are a lot of different expenses you should look at. I always say that if you think it might relate to trying to earn your business income, then keep the receipt or hopefully you’ve got a system where you’re able to record your expenses as you go along and your income so you’re not… Like one client I had many, many years ago brought all his receipts, he was a farmer in a Kellogg’s Corn Flakes box.

Sarah Taylor:

It’s a system of some sort.

Brian Taylor:

Well, there was no system at all because… Anyways, it was awful. But fortunately, I didn’t have to do it.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, no kidding.

Brian Taylor:

But let me run through some of the expenses that maybe you wouldn’t think about. Meals and entertainment. The lunch you have today, not a deductible expense. But if you take a producer out to lunch to convince him or her that you’re the editor that should be working on the particular job and you pay for it, then you can call that a legitimate business expense. In this case, meals and entertainment are only 50% deductible. 

 

But you could do the same thing by taking a producer, or a potential client to some kind of a show, or you pay for them to go to a conference. But if you’re paying, then you can get that as a deduction. You might have to buy some insurance for liability issues, or errors and emissions. That would be deductible. Interest on business loans. So, if you have to go to the bank because you’re just starting and you have to buy your edit suite, you might have to borrow, that interest would be deductible. I assume you pay fees to belong to the Alberta and the Canadian editor associations?

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Brian Taylor:

Deductible. Office supplies, legal and accounting fees. If you don’t work in the office, rent, tenant insurance, utilities. Do you have to get your equipment repaired? That would be a deductible expense, or something you could write off. If you get big enough, then you have employees, obviously salaries and benefits. Do you outsource some of the work that you do? Do you get somebody to help you out? The contract payments you make to that person would be deductible.

 

I know you at one time traveled. You traveled to Calgary to do some work. Your expenses to go there, your travel costs to get there, plane, train, taxi, car, hotel costs, your meals while you’re away from home would be deductible. Conferences, out town conferences you’ve gotten. I know you’ve had to go to conferences. You’ve gone to the awards ceremonies when you won your awards as Canada’s Best Ever Editor, or maybe no, maybe not quite that. Okay, it was Alberta.

Sarah Taylor:

Thanks Dad.

Brian Taylor:

When you finish a product, and you can’t drive it over yourself do you get a courier company to send it over? That cost would be deductible. Postage. Cell phone. Use your cell phone for work, maybe there’s a percentage of the cell phone that’s work related and you can claim 30% or 40 or 50, depending on how much you use the phone for.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. Well, some producers it’s all the time because they text you, and they email you, and they call you [crosstalk 00:08:01].

Brian Taylor:

Well, so there you go. I mean, that’s a business cost because you are using it, you know from… during the business hours, you’re using the cell phone primarily for work. And I may have missed some things, but what I’m saying is, think…whenever you spend some money, think about; Is this related to my business? And then if it’s a possibility it might then keep the receipt and make note of it and talk to your accountant if you’re using somebody to finish off your books, your accounting file and your tax return at year end and see what he, or she says. You can’t claim it if you didn’t keep it.

Sarah Taylor:

Exactly. So you need to have those receipts. That’s the key.

Brian Taylor:

Yeah. You need the receipts for at least two reasons. One, because you need to know the amount you paid and what it’s for. And secondly, if Canada Revenue Agency does decide they want to do an audit, and they do audit periodically, then you need to be able to support what your expenses are.

Sarah Taylor:

Right. Yeah. So, you can’t make up an arbitrary number, being like; “Oh, I went for lunch four times this year,” or whatever. “And it kind of cost this much money.”

Brian Taylor:

It’s not a good idea.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. It’s not ideal. Okay. Now what about gas and mileage? If you’re driving to somebody else’s office to do work, that sort of thing would also be something I could write off?

Brian Taylor:

Yes. So you’re driving over instead of sending the courier company over or a taxi, what the government likes you to do is keep track of all of your car expenses. And so, that’s your car insurance, your license plates, your oil and filter changes, any repairs, gas, and also keep track of your kilometers. And so, you keep track of your business trips. And so you then, so you say, “Okay, I did 10,000 kilometers this year and a thousand of it was on business trips. And so, I claim 10% of all my expenses.” Now that’s what you’re supposed to do. If you don’t use the car that often, and these days it’s probably even less and less because-

Sarah Taylor:

Never.

Brian Taylor:

… of COVID, what you could do is, if you’re taking some trips, like let’s say you went down to Calgary for a one day conference or something, you could just keep track of the gas that you spent on that trip and claim that because that was a business trip. 

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. 

Brian Taylor:

So that’s not as good and you may not be getting as much of expenses. The other thing I forgot is you might have borrowed to buy the car. And so you’ve got interest expense you could deduct as well, and depreciation. So, but it’s a lot of work.

Sarah Taylor:

Yes.

Brian Taylor:

Well, it’s just you have to get into a system. And so, if you take an odometer reading on January 1 if you’re at December year end and you take it on December 31st, that gives the total. And then what I would suggest you do is you just write down the business trip only. If you don’t have a lot of business trips then you’d write down, “On April the 19th, I went 30 kilometers to and 30 kilometers back from my producer’s place of business,” named the producer, maybe even name the show you worked on and do it that way. But it is more work. So, it just depends on how much you’re using the vehicle, as to whether it’s worth your while.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, I know in the past I’ve used in the past, different apps to keep track and I’ve also heard of apps that can… they know when your car’s moving and they just keep track of it on its own. But it is something you have to remember, and I’ve been notoriously bad for remembering. But to know that, yeah, if you’ve bought a car or you have a car loan it could really add up quick I’m guessing.

Brian Taylor:

Oh, definitely.

Sarah Taylor:

If you are driving all the time for work and even if you’re not, but just that little extra, I’m sure, every little extra helps.

Brian Taylor:

Yeah. Now the one thing I should say is if you are working out of an office, and so you’ve rented an office somewhere, driving from home to that office is considered to be personal because that’s where your work is. Just bear that in mind.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. But then I guess for most freelancers they work from home and then they will go to somebody’s studio if they get contracted. So, that would still be considered business if they’re going to somebody else’s studio. Okay. Well, that’s good.

Brian Taylor:

Yeah. Your place of work, your main place of work is your residential address. So anything related to work when you leave the home that would be considered business use.

Sarah Taylor:

So, now coming to home offices, how do we write off the expenses of our house that are like for work?

Brian Taylor:

Okay. So, you have an office in your house that is exclusive for your work. And so, I believe what you’ve done is you’ve determined the square footage of your office and the square footage of your house. And so, let’s say that number is 8%. You can then deduct for your office, if you like, 8% of the heating costs, your home insurance, electricity, cleaning materials, which I don’t imagine is much, property taxes, mortgage interest, and the government will let you claim depreciation, or tax lingo it’s capital cost allowance. But I don’t normally recommend that because if you’re claiming capital cost allowance on a portion of your house, when you sell it then you’ll have to pay tax on a portion of the house.

Sarah Taylor:

That could get complicated.

Brian Taylor:

Normally, principal residents, you don’t have to pay tax when you sell it. You have to report it on your tax return but you don’t have to pay tax on it normally.

Sarah Taylor:

That’s good to know. When should somebody register for GST and PST as a freelancer sole proprietor person?

Brian Taylor:

The rule for GST is that when your income in the first year exceeds $30,000, you have to register. If you’re going to be full-time as a freelancer, you’re probably going to be over 30,000 anyways. So, what you probably should do is register when you start your business. That means that you will have to charge GST on your invoices, but you’ll also then be able to claim any GST you’ve paid on your expenses. You will be able to recover that GST. So, if you have a $1000 invoice that you charge 5% GST on, and so that’s $50, if you spent $10 on supplies that month, the GST was $10, then when you file your GST return, you would say; I collected $50, or I will be collecting when my producer pays me. I paid $10. So, I only have to send $40 to the government. Now it won’t be, necessarily monthly. You might even be filing annually. I’m not sure whether… or quarter quarterly depending on your revenue source. PST, provincial sales tax, I’m sure you’ve registered for PST in Alberta since you don’t have any.

Sarah Taylor:

Nope.

Brian Taylor:

So, other provinces do have provincial sales tax. So, you’d have to take a look at their rules and regulations to see if the work you’re doing is something that you have to charge PST on. Provincial sales tax was not an area I dealt with or dealt in. So, I can’t tell you which provinces require you to register for PST. But just be careful because you don’t want to get caught not complying with the laws. So, if your work is something that is taxable for the province that you live in, then you should be registering and paying the provincial sales tax as required, and charging your clients.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. So what happens if you don’t do that?

Brian Taylor:

Well, if you get caught, if there’s an audit done and you haven’t been collecting and charging and collecting GST then they can fine you. They can charge you interest, and penalties for the shortfall, and they can make you pay the GST that you should have paid.

Sarah Taylor:

Oh, wow. Yeah.

Brian Taylor:

So, generally not a good idea to not get involved in paying the tax, whether it’s provincial, federal, GST. You should always file your tax returns. Now I would suggest you file them on time because if you don’t there can be a late filing penalty. And why would you want to give more money to anybody because you just didn’t get around to pulling together your accounting information and getting somebody to file a tax return for you?

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. Yeah. And then if you do owe, then you’ll pay interest on top of that as well I’m guessing, right?

Brian Taylor:

Yes. Yeah. And that actually leads to another issue. I don’t know if that was a question you’re going to ask, but your income tax. As I said before, your first year taxes are all due April 30th, because the government doesn’t know that you’re working as a freelancer. But once you’ve filed your first tax turn and if there is taxes payable, then the government’s going to want you to pay installments. If you’re an employee, your tax is taken off from your paycheck every period, every pay period. So they’re very happy. They get their tax every month or every two weeks. But as a self-employed individual, there’s nobody to take the tax off. So, they ask you to pay installments on March 15th, June 15th, September 15th, and December 15th. And if there’s any more taxes owing they want you to pay it the following April 30th.

 

They will send you a notice. So, if you don’t get a notice because you didn’t have to pay installments they won’t send it to you. But once you get the notice, for example, you get one in probably August for September and December. They’ll send you a notice. They’ll send you some slip you can take over to the bank if you don’t pay it online, and you should, unless you know your income is going to be way lower in the current year maybe because COVID didn’t let you work, unless you’re in that situation, if your income is consistent or maybe growing every year, you should always pay what the government tells you. And if you do, they won’t charge you interest for being late. But if you’re late and you should have paid the taxes and your tax bill is higher next April then they will probably charge you installment interest too. And that right now is… I believe it’s 5%.

Sarah Taylor:

Whew.

Brian Taylor:

So, it’s more than what you probably would pay on overdraft in your bank or loan you could get. So, way better off to try and pay the installments as required.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. It’s always something that I think I message you every year. I’m like, “Dad, do I have to pay this?” You’re like, “Yes. Pay the installments.”

Brian Taylor:

Yeah. Like I said, the issue is in a year when your income is expected to be down. It’s a little tougher because as a freelancer you still don’t know for sure what you’re going to earn in September and November.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Exactly. Yeah.

Brian Taylor:

So, you’re guessing. But you are allowed to estimate what your taxes will be in the current year and reduce your installments. But if you’re wrong then there’ll be some tax to pay… or some interest to pay.

Sarah Taylor:

And then if you pay the amount and you make less than you could get money back in the end, right?

Brian Taylor:

Well, if you’ve paid “too much”, yes. You’ll get your refund back when you file your tax return, usually in April.

Sarah Taylor:

Now I think the March 15th date is really tricky because I know for myself, I think I forget about that sometimes because I’m in the process of prepping all of my tax information that I forget to pay the March 15th tax installment. And then I think what also is kind of sometimes confusing is… So, maybe you can walk us through this again. So, I’m going to… I have to pay tax installments, March 15th, August 15th-

Brian Taylor:

March, June, September, and December. I have diarized in my calendar and diarized forever that I have installments to pay and I put it on March 13th or 14th just so I’m a day early. But I’ve got them all diarized. I don’t know the amount that I’ll pay next year, but I know that I have to pay it. So, if I don’t have that installment notice from CRA in my hands, in my case, because it’s sent to me electronically, my calendar reminds me.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. Okay. So, it’s good to keep on track of that stuff.

Brian Taylor:

Yeah.

Sarah Taylor:

I know there’s lots of places that we can donate our money to different charities and organizations. We can claim that in our taxes. But what if we’re donating our time for projects, for nonprofits? Is there a way of getting any sort of recuperation in our taxes from that set kind of work?

Brian Taylor:

The short answer is no. And I’ll tell you why. If you are donating your services, and let’s say it’s worth $1000. What you would normally do is you would invoice the charity a $1000 and then you’d say, “Oh, but I’m going to give that. I’m going to wipe out that invoice because I want your good cause and I want to donate my time.” Well, in the accounting world or the tax world, what you should be doing is showing income of $1000, and then a write off of $1000, or a deduction of $1000, which nets to zero. So that’s why the short answer is no. When a business person is donating his or her time that they charge people for it, it should be included income and as a deduction. So, basically it’s a wash.

Sarah Taylor:

Right, because there’s no money transferring.

Brian Taylor:

Correct.

Sarah Taylor:

Another big question that comes up often is when should somebody who’s self-employed, or a sole proprietor decide to incorporate or should that even be something we think about? What are your stance on that from the accounting side of things?

Brian Taylor:

I told my clients, and I think I told you the same thing, and this first part’s the legal part, but if you’re in a business that is really risky legal wise, that there could be somebody that could be hurt on your premises, a construction company, for example, I guess if there’s something you could do and if you really made a big mistake, it’s going to cost somebody millions of dollars and they’re going to sue you for the mistake you made, and you can’t get enough insurance to cover that error and omission, the errors and omissions insurance, or liability insurance for somebody hurting themselves on your site, then you might want to consider incorporating. But talk to your lawyer about that or insurance broker. If you are going to make more money than you will possibly need in a normal year then you might want to incorporate. And I’ll explain why in a minute.

 

And the other reason is if you have a lot of debt related to the business. So, you had to borrow like thousands and thousands of dollars, or tens of thousands of dollars, then you might want to incorporate. And the reason for that in Alberta, a small business, the first $500,000 is taxed at 11%.

Sarah Taylor:

Oh, that’s a lot less.

Brian Taylor:

Whereas a person who makes 100 to 150 thousand dollars would be paying 38%. So, if you earn $10,000 and you pay 38% tax you’ve got $6,200 left to pay off your bank loan. If you have $10,000 and pay 11%, you’ve got $8,900 to pay off your bank loan. So, you can pay it off quicker if you like. And if you only need $100,000 or $50,000 of your income, net income, then if you can leave the other $100,000 in the company you pay 11% versus paying say 38%. So, in that case, it’s a deferral because when you take the money out you’ll have to take it out as a dividend and then you will pay tax.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Right. Yeah. Okay. That makes sense.

Brian Taylor:

So, if you have a company, you pay corporate tax and then you pay dividend tax when you take it out. If you earn it personally, you just pay your one level of tax.

Sarah Taylor:

But then you also pay yourself a salary if you’re incorporated. So, then if I was incorporated and then I’d still have to do personal taxes and my corporate taxes. Correct?

Brian Taylor:

Yes, yes, yes. And you’re right. If you’re making $150,000 in your company and you only want $50,000, you could take a wage of 50,000, send in the tax and CPP, and leave the rest in to be taxed in the company. Now you’re going to have to incorporate a company. That’s probably going to cost you $1000 or so. You’re going to pay an annual… I’ll call it a registration fee to the government every year that could… and maybe $30-$400 bucks. You’re going to pay an accountant to do the corporate accounting, and the corporate tax return. And then you’ll pay probably that same accountant if you’re doing that to prepare your personal tax return. So, there might be an additional cost of $1,500 to $2,000 dollars depending on how complicated things are and how much you do versus how much you have the accountant do. So, you want to make sure it’s worthwhile.

 

Another thing you have to do is you have to remember this is now a separate entity. And so, you’ll need a separate bank account. And you can’t just take the money whenever you want without having to either declare a dividend, or pay a salary. Now you should probably have a separate bank account anyways. I always recommend that you keep your business separate from your personal bank. For one reason, it’s easier to remember all your expenses because you look at the bank statement say, “Oh, look, I spent that $500 and I forgot about that in my accounting record.” So, when you try and reconcile your bank, you’ll see that you’ve missed an expense. That’s a recommendation anyways.

Sarah Taylor:

The incorporation thing sounds like… For me personally, it sounds like a lot of work that I wouldn’t really need to do. So, I’m glad that I’ve chosen not to.

Brian Taylor:

But if you had developed your business where you had three or four editors working for you. You were just out and about generating new business. And you might be making enough money off the other employees that you don’t need it all.

Sarah Taylor:

That’s true. Yeah. Yeah.

Brian Taylor:

So, everybody’s situation is different.

Sarah Taylor:

For sure. Yeah.

Brian Taylor:

For a single freelance editor probably it may not be worthwhile.

Sarah Taylor:

Would you recommend that you do, like go to an actual accountant to do your taxes, or are these online tax software sites good?

Brian Taylor:

Well, it depends on how comfortable you are in doing financial work, how comfortable are you in keeping track of all your expenses and doing your own accounting. Once you’ve got the accounting done the tax return isn’t all that complicated. It just shows up as net business income. But do you know what depreciation rate to claim on a computer, on… Yeah. No. So you may need… yes, you could do some research and you could look it up. It’s easy to find things online these days. But what’s your comfort level and frustration, anxiety? You may be able to find it eventually. It might take you 10 or 20 hours to do something that might take me an hour.

Sarah Taylor:

Exactly. Yeah.

Brian Taylor:

Or where would you rather spend your time? So, is it, can you make more money by spending that extra five hours or so working, or the anxiety and the extra hours to work on the accounting side?

Sarah Taylor:

For sure.

Brian Taylor:

So, a lot of people, that if it’s not there bailiwick then they get somebody else to do that. That’s why we have plumbers, because I don’t know how to deal with plumbing.

Sarah Taylor:

I hear you. What do you think are the best practices that we should do throughout the year to ensure that the process is smooth when it comes to the tax time?

 

Brian Taylor:

Biggest thing, a couple things I guess, is keep track of your expenses. I mean, you can keep track of expenses yourself. You can do an Excel spreadsheet. There’s probably software out there you can keep track of it as well. But if you are not so inclined, then set up a system with your accountant as to how that information gets to him or her and might be better to do it monthly, quarterly than waiting until you year end because then you’ve got that Kelloggs box of Kellogg’s cereal box of receipts. We don’t want to do that. Or a shoebox we used to call it.

 

The other thing is try and make sure you invoice on a regular basis. Well, first of all, you need the cash. So, that’s one reason why you want to invoice as often as possible. But set up a system with your clients and whether it’s monthly, bimonthly, maybe if it’s a small enough job it’s just when job’s finished, but you need the cash. So ,you’ve got to pay expenses. So, try and keep that done on a regular basis too.

Sarah Taylor:

I know with my accountant I was able to… They did bookkeeping and accounting in one. I don’t make my dad do my taxes anymore. He used to do them when I was young, but I’ve grown up and I have my own accountant. I’m sure he still would though if I asked him. But yes, so there are systems out there where you can find accountants that can offer that, and mine’s just all online. And I’m sure there’s other online programs that people use. So, it’s definitely something that can be… not easy but for sure.

Brian Taylor:

Correct.

Sarah Taylor:

But still it’s something you have to keep up on. And I still have trouble with that. One of my other questions is should we consider getting EI, or contributing to EI? So, that if anything goes wrong, we have some sort of help, I guess?

Brian Taylor:

Well, that is now an option. It wasn’t always an option. Generally, self-employed individuals do not have to pay EI. But that means they don’t get any of the EI benefits. So you don’t get maternity leave and you don’t get any kind of benefit if all of a sudden your income is gone. I think each person has to look at it separately and say what are the benefits? If you are a 45 year old, just starting in business and you are not going to have any more children, that means you haven’t got a chance to get the maternity benefit. Then look ahead and say, “What are the chances that I might need to qualify to get some support if I work real well for four or five years and all of a sudden everything dries up?”

 

It’s a call you have to make. I mean, the cost is right now, it’s 1.58% on $54,200 maximum. So, the maximum this year is $856. So, that’s your cost. So, look at what the benefit might be. And I don’t have that information handy, but I don’t know what the… For maternity leave it’s a year, I believe.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. It’s a year’s money, cash wise, but you can spread it out to 18 months. But yeah, it’s a-

Brian Taylor:

Yeah, but it’s only a year of money.

Sarah Taylor:

Only a year. Yeah.

Brian Taylor:

Yeah. So, if you’re younger and you might have two or three kids, you might look at it. But remember, once you’ve signed the form, or signed on to be part of EI, my understanding is you have to be pay EI for the rest of your business career. So, if you’re 25 years old and you’re going to work for another 30 years, that’s 30 years times $850. And it changes. So, that’s $24,00 or $25,000 so, over time. The benefit, if you need it, it might be worthwhile because when you need it that means things are tough.

Sarah Taylor:

Exactly. Yeah. This year shows us, right? It was a tough year. So, yeah. These are the moments when we’re like, “Ooh.” Yeah. So, it’s good to think about that stuff. Now RSPs are something that I always invest in. So, that’s a way to save us money on our taxes.

Brian Taylor:

Correct.

Sarah Taylor:

So, tell us a little bit about RSPs, why that’s something that we should consider doing for our taxes. And then maybe after that, tell us if there’s any other things that we should be considering investing in that maybe we don’t know about.

Brian Taylor:

Well, the RSP was sort of first introduced to help people who wouldn’t otherwise have a pension. So, if you’re self-employed and you are your pension plan, this was a way to put money into an investment vehicle called an RRSP, a registered retirement savings plan. And while the money is sitting in that RRSP, it grows tax free. So, it grows quicker. When you take it out, then you pay tax. So, the concept was, let people do this every year, those they can set aside. Current rules are 18% of your earned income to a maximum… Sorry, I forgot to look that up. It’s around 20… 25, $28,000, something like that. So, you can put that money into RRSP. You can do it through your bank. You can do it through a stock broker. You can do it through an online investment account. And as long as you invest in qualified investments, then that money just grows, and grows, and grows hopefully.

 

So, you get to deduct it at your marginal tax rate. So if you’re at a 38% tax rate, then you save 38% of whatever you put in. So, if you put in $10,000, you save $3,800. When you take the money out when you retire, then you pay tax at whatever your marginal rate is. So, the ideal situation is you contribute when you’re at a high tax bracket. And then when you retire, you have less income and you also have less financial needs. You don’t need to spend as much money. Surprisingly, that does happen. Then maybe you’re in a lower tax bracket. So, you’ve saved at 38 and maybe you only pay at 26. And also, you’re not paying until 30 years from now. So, you’re deferring the tax as well. So, it’s generally a good idea.

 

The other option is a tax free savings account. And that is limited at the moment to $1600 dollars that you can put in annually, and it grows tax free as well, but you don’t pay tax when you take it out. So, it’s really tax free. But there are obviously lower limits as to what you can put in. So, if you’re in a low to mid tax bracket and you have to look at which one do I do, probably suggest a tax free savings account, because you never have to pay tax on it. And the other reason is if you buy an RRSP possibility is, you might end up in a higher tax bracket when you cash in, and now you’ve deducted low and you’ve paid tax high. So, that’s not as good an idea.

 

Now that’s a general concept. Talk to your financial advisor about that. Nice thing about a tax free savings account, if you have an emergency and you need some money and let’s say you’ve got $10,000 sitting in your tax free savings account, you can take that out. Don’t pay any tax. Next year you can put it back in. So even though the limit for next year might be $1600 dollars, you can put in the $10,000 you took out in 2021. You can’t do that with an RSP.

Sarah Taylor:

With an RSP you can take some money out if you buy your first house, but then you have to pay that back. Right?

Brian Taylor:

Correct.

Sarah Taylor:

But with a tax free savings account, you can just take it out. And if you don’t end up putting that money back in you’re not going to get penalized.

Brian Taylor:

No. Yeah. You don’t ever have to put it back in. But if you’ve got investments or you have enough income that you can have investments, you are better to put it back in.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, for sure.

Brian Taylor:

The other thing for people who have younger children is a registered education savings plan. Those funds grow tax free and the government helps… they kick in cash as well. So, there’s limits. You can put in up to $2,500 in a year and the government will match 20%. So, they’ll top it up with $500. You can put $3000 in, but they’ll only match the first $2,500. That money grows tax free. And when it comes out, as long as it’s being used for education for your child, or children then the principal you put in, is returned tax free. But the earnings that come out are taxed in your child’s hands. Traditionally they don’t have much other income. So, they generally don’t pay tax, but they do have to report it. And the financial institution that you dealt with for the registered education savings plan will give you a tax slip to show how much is taxable.

Sarah Taylor:

Are there any other tips that you would have that we haven’t covered for making things easier on the minds of a freelancer?

Brian Taylor:

It can seem to be like a daunting experience, but if you ever in doubt ask somebody. Well, first I guess these days go online and see if you can find something on a government website or whatever that is a little more authoritarian than perhaps somebody, Joe’s website, not picking on Joe. But yeah. I mean, most accounting tax financial advisors, they’re willing to sit down and talk to you and might even sit down for 10, 15 minutes if it’s a real quick thing and say; “no charge”. We’re all in business to make money. So, don’t expect it to be no charge, but sometimes I was willing to help people out because it didn’t take much of my time, and I could see that it was important to them.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, yeah. Well, and you have that knowledge. It’s just in your brain. So, if you have a dad that’s an accountant, that’s really helpful. He doesn’t charge you.

Brian Taylor:

True.

Sarah Taylor:

Or does he? Anyway, thank you, Dad. This has been really helpful. And by the way, this is Brian James Taylor. He’s a retired C.A. He’s also my Dad, and it’s been really great that he always shares his knowledge with me and that he was willing to share his knowledge with all of you. And I hope that it’s been helpful.

Brian Taylor:

Thanks, Sarah.

Sarah Taylor:

Thank you so much for joining us.

Brian Taylor:

Bye.

Sarah Taylor:

Thank you so much for joining us today and a big thank you goes to my Dad, Brian James Taylor, for taking the time to chat with me and for being so supportive over my career. And a special thanks goes to Jane McCrae and Alison Dowler.. The main title sound design was created by Jane Tattersall. Additional ADR recording by Andrea Rush. Original music created by Chad Blain and Soundstray. This episode was mixed and mastered by Tony Bao.

Sarah Taylor:

The CCE has been supporting Indspire, an organization that provides funding and scholarships for indigenous post-secondary students. We have a permanent portal on our website at cceditors.ca, or you can donate directly to indspire.ca, I-N-D-S-P-I-R-E.ca. The CCE is taking steps to build a more equitable ecosystem within our industry. And we encourage our members to participate in any way they can. If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please rate and review us on Apple podcasts and tell your friends to tune in. Till next time I’m your host, Sarah Taylor,

Speaker 4:

The CCE is a nonprofit organization with the goal of bettering the art and science of picture editing. If you wish to become a CCE member, please visit our website, www.cceditors.ca. Join our great community of Canadian editors for more related info.

Abonnez-vous là où vous écoutez vos balados

Que voulez-vous entendre sur L'art du montage?

Veuillez nous envoyer un courriel en mentionnant les sujets que vous aimeriez que nous abordions, ou les monteurs.euses dont vous aimeriez entendre parler, à :

Crédits

Un grand Merci à

Jane MacRae

Brian Taylor

Jana Spinola

Hosted and Produced by

Sarah Taylor

Design sonore du générique d'ouverture

Jane Tattersall

ADR Recording by

Andrea Rusch

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Musique originale par

Chad Blain
Soundstripe

Sponsor Narration by

Paul Winestock

fr_CAFR

stay connected

Subscribe to our mailing list to
receive updates, news and offers

Aller au contenu