Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 040: Interview with Liza Cardinale, ACE

The Editors Cut - Episode 040 - Interview with Liza Cardinale, ACE

Episode 040: Interview with Liza Cardinale, ACE

Today's episode is an interview with Liza Cardinale, ACE.

Liza Cardinale, ACE is a television editor based in Los Angeles, CA. Her work spans many genres from comedy to fantasy and often features stories with complex female characters. Some of her credits include Outlander, Dead To Me which earned her an Eddie nomination, and the upcoming dramedy On The Verge. We chat about Liza’s editing journey from New York to LA and what life is like during the pandemic.

The Editors Cut - Episode 040 - Interview with Liza Cardinale, ACE

À écouter ici !

The Editor’s Cut – Episode 040 – Interview with Liza Cardinale

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.

Sarah Taylor:

Before we begin today’s episode, I have a message from the Vancouver short Film Festival. The Vancouver Short Film festival is committed to celebrating the vibrant community of short film, video, and animation artists in British Columbia. Watching together while staying apart, this year, VSFF will take place January 22nd to 24th, 2021 in an online format. Visit vsff.com for more information.

Sarah Taylor:

Today, I bring to you an interview with Liza Cardinale, ACE. Liza is a television editor based in Los Angeles, California. Her work spans many genres, from comedy to fantasy, and often features stories with complex female characters. Some of her credits include Outlander, Dead to Me, which earned her an Eddie nomination, and the upcoming dramedy, On the Verge. We chat about Liza’s editing journey from New York to LA and what life is like during the pandemic. I hope you enjoy getting to know Liza as much as I did.

 

[show open]

Sarah Taylor:

Liza, thank you so much for joining me today on The Editor’s Cut. I’m really excited to sit down and pick your brain about all things editing.

Liza Cardinale:

Sure. My pleasure to be here.

Sarah Taylor:

Excellent. Where I like to start is, where are you from and what led you to the world of editing?

Liza Cardinale:

Well, I grew up in the Bay Area, which is around San Francisco in California. I think it all began because I was a latchkey kid, which in generation X, where the people who like I had a single mom who was working, so a lot of times I’d get home and I would just watch TV. That was part of my routine. So, I watched a lot of shows like Three’s Company and Laverne & Shirley, and I mean, tons of really fun eighties sitcoms.

Sarah Taylor:

Excellent.

Liza Cardinale:

If they weren’t appropriate for children, a lot of things were definitely going over my head, but I think I just got caught with the bug of entertainment really young because of that. Because that was like my friend, my companion, my TV, my joy, my entertainment, so much fun. Then my dad, he moved to LA to become a writer on Family Ties, because he was never a writer when I was a kid. He was an accountant and then he built houses.

Sarah Taylor:

That’s a big shift. That’s awesome.

Liza Cardinale:

Huge shift, yeah. The way he kept changing careers, I think showed me that wow, anything’s possible. When you’re a grownup, you don’t have to settle into one thing. You should always follow your passion. His really good friend from growing up was Gary David Goldberg, who had created Family Ties and really hit it big as a writer, but they were just little scrappy kids running around Brooklyn in the ’50s. But Gary really wanted his friends to join him in his success, so he taught them how to write from afar. I just remember my dad writing all these spec scripts of cheers and whatnot.

Liza Cardinale:

I would read them, and he would say, “Read this script and put a red check mark by anything that’s funny.”

Sarah Taylor:

That’s awesome.

Liza Cardinale:

To make sure that the humor was coming across. I’d say that, that was my early training, was in reading. Reading his scripts and seeing him evolve as a writer. He still writes to this day. You cannot get this guy to stop writing. He loves it. No one’s paying him for it, but he loves it. That’s something you can do forever. That was a happy thing. Then when I would visit him in LA, I could sometimes visit the set of Family Ties because they had a live audience, so that was super exciting to me, as like an awkward tween from suburban Marin County, where nothing exciting was really going on.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, that’s awesome.

Liza Cardinale:

Getting that peek behind the curtain made a big difference. Sadly, I never got to work with Gary, or even talk to him really, professionally, because by the time I had a strong career, he had already retired and sadly he’s passed away now. But interestingly, sidebar, he is one of the main reasons that Liz Feldman became a showrunner and a writer. She’s the showrunner of Dead to Me. She also grew up in Brooklyn, like my father did, like Gary, and she said that, when she was a kid, she was in her parent’s chiropractor office, and they got all the magazines for the clients to read in the waiting room.

Liza Cardinale:

She read People Magazine. They had a huge profile on Gary David Goldberg, the showrunner of Family Ties, and he was talking about his life story growing up in Brooklyn. Liz said that that was her light bulb moment, where she’s like, that’s what I want to do.

Sarah Taylor:

That’s amazing.

Liza Cardinale:

She didn’t know showrunners existed, but the fact that he came from Brooklyn and he ascended to those heights showed her that she could. So, it’s been cool. Sometimes Liz and I talk Brooklyn stuff.

Sarah Taylor:

What a wild connection that, that ended up being. How cool is that?

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah. The last time my dad visited me, I took a picture of him, because I gave him like a Dead to Me hat or something with a baseball cap. She said, “Oh, it looks like your dad and my dad should be friends,” and then she sent me a picture of him, and they’re like the exact same type of cute Brooklyn dude. I don’t know how to explain them [crosstalk 00:06:01].

Sarah Taylor:

Dude from Brooklyn.

Liza Cardinale:

Adorable. Yeah.

Sarah Taylor:

Oh, that’s fantastic. So, your dad was a big influence on you for even just storytelling, getting into that world, knowing that, that’s a possibility. How did you end up then … Did you just decide to go to film school? What was your next step knowing that you wanted to do that too?

Liza Cardinale:

Well, I didn’t know much about it, and my dad didn’t know much about behind the scenes people, so I just thought there are directors, there are writers, and there are actors. That’s about the extent of what I knew about filmmaking. I thought, I know I don’t want to be in front of a camera. I could be into writing, but I think I should direct. I think I want to be a director. That was initially what got me into really studying different directors’ work. I would rent all their movies and go down the rabbit hole of Hitchcock or John Waters. I got really obsessed with them, and David Lynch. I liked the weird stuff.

Liza Cardinale:

I still like weird stuff. I went to UC Berkeley and it didn’t really have a film department. I was doing like theater. I was just sort of dabbling at that point in various art forms, but I made some films instead of writing papers because I was lazy about writing papers sometimes. The teachers would accept that, even though there was no production department, so I just had to make my own movies and use my own camera. Then they had one VHS tape to tape kind of editing system, so I got in there. You could not tear me out of that room. I just wanted to stay for hours and hours, and the sun went down and the time flew by.

Sarah Taylor:

It sounds very familiar.

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah, that’s a very common early editor story. You get in there, you’re like, I’ve never done this before, but I can’t stop. [crosstalk 00:07:45].

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. It’s been … What? 12 hours just passed? What? Oh my gosh. Yeah.

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah. It was so rewarding. That’s when I realized that this is my happy place. I don’t really want to be in charge of everything, and I definitely don’t want to get up at five in the morning every day and run to set. I think this is a much better fit.

Sarah Taylor:

Then what led you to your first job? How did you get your first job in the industry, or even learn the craft?

Liza Cardinale:

I still didn’t know what I wanted to do. I was doing random jobs. I went to New York thinking I wanted to move to New York, so I was pretty much homeless at that point. I was just like subletting an apartment. September 11th happened the day after I arrived in New York City, and that completely shut the city down. So, any like job hunting, house hunting, Mary Tyler Moore fantasies I was having of taking over Manhattan, that definitely was halted in its tracks. Instead, I just had the experience of being there for that.

Liza Cardinale:

One of my best friends in the city was an assistant editor. I knew I liked editing. I still hadn’t committed to that as a craft, but she let me come to work with her every day because I had nothing to do and nowhere to go, and the city was kind of shut down. She was working in Nyack on a Jonathan Demme movie called The Truth About Charlie. She was an old school film assistant that doesn’t really exist anymore where she was conforming the print. But the main editor, Carol Littleton was working on an Avid, and she had one assistant who was working on an Avid.

Liza Cardinale:

I’d sometimes sit behind that one. Her name’s Suzanne Spangler, she’s an editor now. She would just to look over her shoulder and be like, “So, here’s what I’m doing. Here’s how you get the dailies, you get the bin, you get the ALE file. I just like accidentally shadowed some really great, top tier professional editors. Then went to a trade school right after that. I went to a school that just taught editing in Portland, like an Avid certified whatever kind of place. Somebody I met there … I was still homeless at this point, by the way, because I moved from New York to Portland.

Liza Cardinale:

That school, they get a director to bring footage in to let the students play with it. The director was named Billy Logue, and he said, “Why don’t you move to LA after this is done and recut my movie. I want you to cut the whole thing. I can’t really pay you, but I’ll get you a job at the Playboy channel.” Which is where he worked.

Sarah Taylor:

Interesting. Yeah.

Liza Cardinale:

But I’d said, “Sure.” It’s very open at that point, and then what’s the next door that’s opening I’m going to walk through it? I moved into my dad’s garage, where I had a little twin size bed and got to work night shift assistant editor. My first job, I just learned from the people. I learned the Avid, but I had no idea about workflow and scripts and all the things, outputs that I had to do, but people are so friendly. They taught me everything I needed to know, the other assistant editors.

Sarah Taylor:

Then that led you to assistant editing, right?

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah. I assistant edited for a very long time. It felt like an eternity.

Sarah Taylor:

Did it feel like an eternity because you felt like you’re trying to get to the next step and it just wasn’t happening, or how did it work for you to get from assistant to now then be like, okay, I don’t want to be labeled that anymore, I want to be the editor?

Liza Cardinale:

That was a very tough leap. I think it might be a bit easier for ladies now because people are so hungry to find lady editors. But I did notice in my time, which is not that many years ago, that all my male counterparts had been promoted long before I was. I don’t think it was because I had less skills. I just think people just tended to trust guys more. The way it’s changing, it’s great. For me, I met this editor named Jonathan Schwartz on the Big C.

Sarah Taylor:

That’s such a great show.

Liza Cardinale:

Oh yeah, it was a great show. I loved it so much so I always made sure I went back to it. I couldn’t make the last season, but I did three seasons of it. We would kind of share … It was a weird setup, so I think I had to assist a few different editors and they’d shuffle us around. I just really liked John. I had been working on The Walking Dead, but it was giving me so many nightmares.

Sarah Taylor:

Can’t even imagine.

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah, it was pretty gross to work on that. It was with a good friend of mine. I was assisting someone from college actually, from UC Berkeley. Lovely guy, but I just called him and I said, I don’t think it’s a good fit for me. I’m dreaming about putting axes in zombies heads and blood spurting is just really not my style. I told John, “John, I like you. I like assisting you. Wherever you go next, you can have me if you want me.” He said, “Oh, okay. You’re not going back to The Walking Dead. Okay.” He took me to a show called The Neighbors for ABC, which was a sitcom.

Liza Cardinale:

He really wanted to cut features, so he didn’t want to stay there for very long. He did stay the whole first season, but then the second season, he decided to leave to do a feature that he recommended that they promote me instead of finding an outside editor.

Sarah Taylor:

That was great.

Liza Cardinale:

So, I was very lucky to have that assist. Then the showrunner, Dan Fogelman, knew me, trusted me. I had cut some stuff for him, so he went to bat for me. I think that the hard thing is that you need somebody in a position of great power to go to bat for you with the studio because they don’t want to risk it.

Sarah Taylor:

Was that your first sitcom? You watched the sitcoms as a young kid in the ’80s, and then now you’re cutting a sitcom. Were you like, “Wow, I’m here.”

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah. It wasn’t the kind of sitcom that those were. There was no live audience or anything, but it had that sensibility. I think, because it was very wholesome and sweet and family based. As my dad would tell me, you always have to end with a quiet scene between two people. You have to get to this intimate, true heartwarming moment at the end, and I pretty much followed that formula. It did feel pretty good. It was definitely weird too, but it got canceled. But still, it was such a great first job because I knew everybody on the crew. I even knew the actors because they shot right there and I had so much support.

Liza Cardinale:

My first day, I had people coming into my room saying, “Liza, we’re so happy for you. You’re going to do great. Congratulations.” Because they knew it was such a big deal too. I felt like, oh, I’m so supported. I don’t have to prove myself. I still do, but I don’t have to do it in a unfriendly environment.

Sarah Taylor:

Exactly. That makes all the difference.

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah.

Sarah Taylor:

You ended up being the one of main editors of Outlander, which is a huge series that has a huge following. People love it. I giggled when I heard that your first job was with Playboy and you’re working on Outlander, which some people say is soft core for women. I was like, that’s fun.

Liza Cardinale:

Definitely is. Yes, there’s enough soft core for men. It’s time to make some for women. I fully support that.

Sarah Taylor:

Yes, amen. I think that is great. Getting onto Outlander, did you read the books? Were you interested in that series before you got onto it? What was the story of Outlander, and when you started working on it, did you have a feeling that it was going to become this big?

Liza Cardinale:

Well, I knew it was a huge romance, novel community. I knew it was huge in that community as a book series, so I suspected. Just like Game of Thrones, that whenever you have multi-million human beings already in love with these characters and waiting for it, I figured it would be pretty big, especially once the casting was good, because that’s where I guess it could have sunk if people didn’t love their Jamie because they love their Jamie so much. That would have been like a personal affront. I love that it has such a big fan base because I like to read their comments on episodes that I’ve done and see on Facebook.

Liza Cardinale:

I just love to know that it’s connecting with people and to see which are the moments that they really connect to, what makes them cry, what disappoints them too, I’m curious about, which is usually any time it diverts from the book, which is like the Bible.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, no kidding.

Liza Cardinale:

Even before I had my interview for that show, I read the entire first book, which was hard to get through all of it really fast, but I didn’t really know about it before. I got the audio book, I would read it, I would get it in my car whenever I was driving through Los Angeles. It was really fresh in my mind when I talked to Merrill, who was an executive producer and she was in Scotland. She was like calling me from the set to interview me.

Sarah Taylor:

Oh, so cool.

Liza Cardinale:

The crazy time zone difference. But I could just talk about the characters in the story and that was basically the interview. It was so easy to latch onto that, especially in that first book. It’s so exciting because it’s the falling in love and the time travel. Yeah, all the hot steaminess of it. I’m someone who’s been to a lot of conventions like Comic-Con or KublaCon, various kind of nerdy things. I just like that environment. Super fans are not new to me. That’s a very comfortable crowd. I remember when it premiered and I went to the … A lot of us went down to Comic-Con for the premiere, and they had it in a big movie theater. Bear McCreary, the composer debuted the Jamie and Claire theme music live on stage.

Sarah Taylor:

Amazing.

Liza Cardinale:

Then they played the first episode of cut outs and all these ladies in the audience just screaming, screaming throughout. It was really fun. It’s so fun as a TV editor to get to see things in the theater anyway, because usually you have such a distance from your audience.

Sarah Taylor:

That must’ve been really interesting, you’re getting feedback from your audience all the time. As you went forward to the second season, to the next seasons, were you taking some of that knowing how the audience was reacting to things? Were you thinking about that in the edit, or were you just still doing your thing going with your instinct?

Liza Cardinale:

Well, I would always read the book before the season started for me. That was mainly because I could see how important accuracy was to the fans. I had to just become a fan of the books myself in order to deliver that, so it’s very clear in the books what are big moments and what a character is supposed to be like. Sometimes that changes based on casting and stuff, but I could tell … I could just see what were the important moments that needed to land and needed to be really emotional and heartfelt, so then I made sure I gave them a lot of extra time in the edit. I spent a whole day, and this is not even actually something from the book.

Liza Cardinale:

This is a bad example, but I spent at least a full day on a one minute scene where Jamie goes into a blacksmith place, and Murtagh’s there, and he doesn’t know Murtagh’s there. They’re seeing each other for the first time in years, but I understand how important that relationship is and how huge that moment needed to be an epic reveal moment. I spend the time by trying it a hundred different ways until I find the best one.

Sarah Taylor:

It might not have been in the book, but you knew those characters and you knew how important those moments were for the audience, which I think probably made a huge impact for the people watching that [crosstalk 00:20:02].

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah. A later episode in that season, I also got to cut the scene where Jamie sees Brianna for the first time, because she traveled back in time to find him. That also was a very tough scene, and I spent days and days on it trying a hundred different pieces of music and different close-ups, different timing, who, what. In the end, it got to a place where everybody would cry when they watched it.

Sarah Taylor:

Because you’re like, I win. I did it.

Liza Cardinale:

I did it.

Sarah Taylor:

When you’re in those moments where you’re going and you’re auditioning all these different takes or you’re playing with the different music, are you bringing, in your workflow, do you bring somebody else in to watch your edits with you or do you watch it on a different screen? How do you navigate that world when you’re trying to see if a scene is working?

Liza Cardinale:

I usually don’t bring anyone in. I think, because I’m the hardest to please person that I know. If I can please myself, I kind of assume that other people will like it, which may be a weird thing to say, but sometimes I’ll play it later, or I’ll let my assistant, of course, watch it when they need to do some sound work on it or something. That’s usually my first audience I’d say. I love when assistant tells me if the scene is working for them or not. I really respect their opinion. But yeah, I usually don’t like get a crowd in or anything. I sometimes sit back, I try to watch it without touching the keyboard, but I usually fail.

Sarah Taylor:

It’s really hard. I’ve tried that too. I’m like, maybe if I watch it on my TV where it’s not in my editing, but I still haven’t tried it.

Liza Cardinale:

Well, this is advice that Michael Ruscio, another ACE member, he told me that it was really important to take it home and to watch it on your TV, especially when you’re talking about a full episode, because that’s the only way you cannot touch it. It’s the only way you can get in the head of an actual audience member.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, for sure.

Liza Cardinale:

I still have not done that though. I don’t know why. I don’t have the patience to do it that way.

Sarah Taylor:

I know. I feel very much the same, but I think it’s great advice. We just need to take it.

Liza Cardinale:

It’s great advice. I’m just such an obsessive changer. I’m just such a noodler.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. That sounds very similar to my style. Were there any challenges that came with Outlander, you jumping between time? It sounds like it could be very complicated. Did you run across any challenges in the edit?

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah. Well, I’d say the most challenging thing sometimes was the camera work, because it was a tough … We were in this weird gray zone where they wanted to be beautiful, but not very composed, like a typical period piece would be. They wanted it to feel real and grounded. That’s what was special and unique about the show. Sometimes when you have a handheld camera that’s moving around and shifting focus, and there’s a lot of times when it’s just ugly unusable stuff, because cameras, then sometimes they miss the moment that I really, really wanted.

Liza Cardinale:

That’s a challenge that I’d say is not my favorite challenge to deal with, but I just worked hard to preserve the beauty as best I could. Sometimes I’d have to stabilize shots that were a little too loosey goosey. The other challenge would be that the showrunner, at the time when I worked there, was Ron Moore, Ronald D. Moore. He likes to rewrite in the edit. Not all showrunners do that, for sure, but he is definitely the type. He’s not restricted by what he’s seeing on the screen. He’s like, Oh, let’s just change the entire theme and vibe of this theme.” Or like, let’s end it here, or take the whole middle out.

Liza Cardinale:

He’s very outside the box thinker, which is great. I find it really exciting to work for people like that, but sometimes it feels like, what? You want me to do what? That’s not at all what they shot, that’s not at all what was written, that’s not how it was played. But there’s actually a ton you can do in the edit when you have to. It was a great learning experience. For example, there’s a scene in season one, episode five, which was my very first episode that I cut, where she’s going on the road in Scotland. It’s a love letter to Scotland episode.

Liza Cardinale:

It shows the world beyond just her, and she’s starting to connect with these people almost against her better judgment. She’s just starting to like them and feel like part of the part of the crowd. They were supposed to be on the road for like months and months, but it felt like it was three days because I don’t know, it was just a failure of the script or whatever. It didn’t come through that there was time passing. Ron said, “I need to feel the passage of time. Let’s just make a montage somewhere in the middle there and we’ll add some video.” Then he said, “Okay, make a montage out of footage. Shop for other scenes.” I had to dig through now, luckily there were some things that I hadn’t used at other campsites or whatever, so I could pretend like it was … This is a whole new campsite.

Liza Cardinale:

This is a whole different … This is the same river, but I’m going to flop the shot and pretend that’s a different river. The view certainly helped, but I think people completely bought it that this was a legitimately planned time passage montage. It helps that everybody’s wearing the same clothing. From episode to episode, they’re just never changing their clothing because to be like time period realistic.

Sarah Taylor:

Exactly.

Liza Cardinale:

You can really steal stuff. You could steal stuff from anywhere. I could steal things sometimes I’d have to steal from other episodes to make a montage. Because this is not the only time I had to do that. I had to do that probably every season, make up a montage that wasn’t there.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. Yep, that sounds like a challenge, but great that there’s the opportunity that you have those extra elements that you can just harvest from, right?

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah, and that was nice about being there for so long, so I was there for the first four seasons, so I had a pretty good baseline knowledge of …

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. You can remember what came from before or whatever. That’s cool.

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah.

Sarah Taylor:

Do you have a highlight from Outlander?

Liza Cardinale:

Well, my favorite episode was definitely the witch trial episode, which was season one, episode 11, and I loved it because it was when Claire confesses to Jamie she’s a time traveler. I knew that also from the book was a huge, huge, huge, huge deal. There was so much anticipation leading up to that moment. It felt … Yeah, I liked being able to cut that. Then I loved the friendship with Geillis, and the craziness of the witch trial and everyone’s shouting. It was just such a visceral episode that went so many places. From beginning to end, you really feel like you’ve been through something. It’s an experience. Yeah, I loved getting to be that.

Sarah Taylor:

That’s awesome. Are there types of scenes that you prefer to edit? Do you like editing elaborate scenes with lots of people? What is your ideal scene to cut that you’re like, “Yes, I can’t wait to cut the scene?”

Liza Cardinale:

Well, I don’t love cutting scenes with lots of people in them because they’re so hard. They’re so hard. I love any scene that has emotional undercurrents going on, like falling in love is my favorite kind of scene to cut, I guess, building up to kisses, or good friendship, or intimacy when something feels really real and connected. That’s my favorite. Then hopefully the performances are good.

Sarah Taylor:

I feel like you’ve got to do a lot of that in your work on Dead to Me, there’s a lot of those kinds of moments.

Liza Cardinale:

Yes.

Sarah Taylor:

You’ve worked a lot on a lot of Netflix series as of late, Dead to Me being one, and Insatiable, which I loved. I thought that was a great series. Then Teenage Bounty Hunters, which I sadly heard was not renewed.

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah, that really surprised me.

Sarah Taylor:

With Dead to Me and Insatiable, it’s comedy, but it’s dark comedy. Is that something that you were wanting to get into?

Liza Cardinale:

Not consciously. I think it just sort of happened. I think I have enough of a slightly morbid sense of humor that it’s a good fit, and I understand it, and I get it. I’m grateful to be in that place, but yeah, I didn’t actively pursue it. If anything, I keep telling my agent, I want to do a romcom. I want to do a romcom. I think they’re making them again. Just get me on some, like you’ve got mailed [inaudible 00:28:55] in Seattle type movie. That still might happen. Those usually are not dark comedy, but they’re sweet. But yeah, I like to go between the two. I like to balance my light and my darkness.

Sarah Taylor:

That’s amazing. Let’s talk about Dead to Me. How did you end up getting that job? How did that work out for you?

Liza Cardinale:

That was a matter of me sending my resume to the right person at the exact right moment. I was wrapping up on Orange is the New Black. I was hired to just cut one episode because the editor had to start late, and I had no idea what I was doing next. I heard about Dickinson for Apple, and that this woman, Darlene Hunt, who was the creator of The Big C, I heard she was involved. So, I sent her my resume and said, “Hey, do you need anyone, Dickinson? She said, “No, we’re cutting in New York, but I’m sending your resume to a friend who’s looking for an editor.

Sarah Taylor:

Oh great.

Liza Cardinale:

That was Liz Feldman. Liz got it. Within an hour, she had her post producer call me and say, can you come in and interview? I mean, they were desperate. They had already started shooting, and they didn’t have their pilot editor.

Sarah Taylor:

Oh wow.

Liza Cardinale:

I think they had just started shooting that day. Liz is just … She’s very picky. She had interviewed a lot of people and she hadn’t felt that click, that magic that she was looking for. I basically packed up my office at Orange is the New Black and drove right over to the interview with her at Raleigh Studios. I hadn’t read the script because I really had just gotten the phone call about it. I didn’t even know about the show. She told me, “I like Christina Applegate”. I love her. Oh my God, she’s a goddess. Yes, yes, yes. I’m going to love the show. Yes. I had already been hired to cut another dark comedy about a widow called Widow.

Sarah Taylor:

Interesting.

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah. Then that was going to happen the year before and then it got killed, whatever. Happens to pilots. They never ended up shooting it. It was for YouTube Red. I think that that disappeared, whatever happened. I felt like I had unfinished business in widow comedies.

Sarah Taylor:

You needed that.

Liza Cardinale:

I needed to do a widow pilot. I even told her about that one. She said, “Yeah, I read that script. That was pretty good.” I said, “Yeah, it’s really sad that didn’t happen, but please can I do this one?” She sent me the script and on Saturday I read it. Then we talked again. I said, I loved it, whatever. We talked about the script. She said, “It’s between you and one other person.” I don’t know who that was. She was really agonizing over it. Then Monday I found out she had chosen me. Yay.

Sarah Taylor:

Yay.

Liza Cardinale:

Then I had to get to work. I had to wait for Netflix to approve me, which took a couple of days. I started on Tuesday or Wednesday, right after the interview and I was already so behind, whatever, because they started shooting on Friday. Then there was that panic that I think you know about, where they were concerned about a particular scene [crosstalk 00:31:58].

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, tell us about that scene.

Liza Cardinale:

Okay, so my first day there was very intense. They were shooting down the hall. They were shooting using part of my … The editing office as a location. So, there were like a million people thumping around the line producer, and Liz, and the director kept coming into my room and saying, “Have you cut the scene yet? Have you cut the scene yet? We might need to do a pickup. We might need to do a rewrite. I don’t know. We have to get this location, it’s really complicated. You just need to show us the scene right now.”

Sarah Taylor:

No pressure, no pressure.

Liza Cardinale:

I said, “Oh my God”, I just got here. I don’t even know what this show is. This is really stressing me out, to have to show something on my first day. This is definitely not standard operating procedure. I cut something together and showed them, and they were like doing this kind of woo pensive watching. They’re like, yes, we need to pick something or we need to shoot something differently. I said, “Well, Liz, what is it that you want from the scene? Because maybe I can tell you if it’s somewhere in the dailies, maybe I just need to change the cut.”

Liza Cardinale:

She said, “Well, I don’t think you’re keyed into Judy’s story enough and I think it needs to be a closeup. I think we need a closeup of her and we need to have more of an emotional moment with her telling the story of her miscarriages.” I said, “Yeah, that would really help. To be honest, I don’t believe her because she’s just been exposed as a liar, so I don’t even know if she’s telling the truth about these miscarriages.” Liz said, “Mm.” She wrote a lot of new dialogue and shot a new scene and it became abundantly clear she’s not lying. This is a super earnest, sad, raw moment for her. That’s what was missing in the original version of the scene.

Sarah Taylor:

Wasn’t this one of the first scenes that they actually shot too?

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah. They shot all that whole grief circle. Everything at the grief circle, which was the beginning and the end, they shot that the first day.

Sarah Taylor:

Even for the actors to get into it, that’s such a big scene to do at the beginning?

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah. That’s wild.

Sarah Taylor:

Those scenes where you’re like … It’s almost like a dinner table scene or a fight scene, or like your pen. You’re in the scene and there’s lots of different direction and it’s a circle, that must’ve been a huge challenge in itself just cutting a scene like that. How did you approach that? Especially under the gun of, I need to put something together now. How do you do that? What did you do?

Liza Cardinale:

Oh God, I think I was having an out of body experience. I can’t really remember. I liked the take where Jen … The thing about Christina Applegate, she doesn’t like to do a lot of takes, so you kind of have what you have. I liked the one where she came in really hot and was yelling and really angry. I just went with that vibe and then tried to find some funny reactions, but I don’t know. I don’t even know how to answer the question because it was such a frightening experience. I just tried to like block out everything that was going on around me and say, okay, what do I like? What do I like?

Liza Cardinale:

I don’t know the tone of the show. I don’t know what the showrunner wants. I’ll just try to do something I think is interesting and hope that, that translates.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. I feel like that’s a really common. It’s sometimes hard to articulate how the process is working in our heads, as editors. Like, we’re doing what feels right. We’re doing what our instincts tell us to do. You brought up not really knowing the tone of the show, and as a pilot editor, that’s what you’re helping shape. How do you approach that with the director, the showrunner, and getting the right tone? Especially in a dark comedy, because I feel like if it’s too much joke, then there’s not enough drama, how do you balance that?

Liza Cardinale:

That was super tough on the Dead to Me Pilot. We spent a lot of time, a lot, a lot of time. Finding the tone for one thing was finding the right temp music. That was so hard. I basically gave up because everything I tried, Liz would reject. Eventually, we hired a music editor to come work with us for a few days. He had a huge library of soundtracks and he found one thing that she liked, one thing. It was the soundtrack to a movie called Barry, about Obama. It wasn’t the Barry … At first, I started cutting with it thinking this is Barry, the TV.

Sarah Taylor:

The TV show.

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah. But no, it’s the movie called Barry. For some reason, she responded to that. It wasn’t too sappy. It wasn’t too comedic. It just had a little lift of energy to it that helped you feel like it wasn’t … because we were trying the leftovers. All she had told us was that she liked piano and she liked a bit of orchestration, which sounded like we were going down a path of way too heavy handed, dark sadness. Because especially if I ever put in a comedy film score, she would say, “That’s too jokey. That sounds too jokey. No, no, no, no.”

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah, it was very hard to get there. But once I found Barry, we just used that for everything. We used every track of that throughout the first season. I mean, now we have actual score from Adam Plouff, which is beautiful and he hit that tone nicely. Yeah, I think music is a big part of the tone. Then we had to shave out a lot. Basically this tone was found by cutting out scenes, and part of that … Or cutting scenes in half. Too much was being played, very earnestly, in dramatic, and so it didn’t feel like a comedy at all. I would say it’s still is not huge comedy forward, but you at least know that you have permission to laugh at stuff that it’s not taken too seriously.

Liza Cardinale:

There were scenes like the beach scene where they talk Jen and Judy and they’re really bonding there. There was at least two more minutes of that, for example. That was something we could trim down, keep it intimate, keep it sweet and important, but not linger too long on these heavy stories they’re telling each other. There’s another time when they go to a cliff and they do this primal scream together, and we just took it out. I don’t know. It just felt a little too Indie movie moment scene moment, or something.

Sarah Taylor:

I’ve seen that scene before.

Liza Cardinale:

Exactly. It was an iconic moment. We didn’t need to repeat. The grief circle in the beginning also went maybe five minutes longer than what you see today, which is still pretty long, but that’s the shortest I can make it happen. I tried to cut that scene down for, days, days and days.

Sarah Taylor:

How much time did you have to get the pilot to be ready for … Were you on a tight deadline to cut the pilot or did you have some space to actually try?

Liza Cardinale:

We had space because they didn’t do the pilot separately. They just started the series, so I had basically the entire run of the series to keep tweaking it, and we did keep tweaking it for a very long time. I can’t even remember what episode we were up to shooting when we finally said, it’s locked, but it took a while. Yeah, we just had to, whatever time she needed.

Sarah Taylor:

That’s great.

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah.

Sarah Taylor:

With Outlander, was that a scenario where, because it was for a broadcaster, were you doing it where you had, like you had your 10 days of, or whatever it might’ve been to get to an editor’s cut, then you had a director’s cut, and then you had lock-in stuff to meet deadlines, air date deadlines?

Liza Cardinale:

No, no. I think the air dates were so typically so far away that they really did not influence our time. We had as much time as we needed.

Sarah Taylor:

With Netflix stuff, is that kind of how it’s going? Because you basically delivered the whole season at once.

Liza Cardinale:

I mean, Dead to Me season two was very intense delivering because they wanted to … They had a launch date in mind so we did have to get every episode done by whatever, April or something. It was a lot of weekend work and late nights to make that happen. That was not an ideal creative scenario. I’m not sure what season three is going to be like, but I’ll find out soon enough. They’re gonna start shooting in January is the plan right now.

Sarah Taylor:

That’s exciting. Cross our fingers.

Liza Cardinale:

Hopefully that works out. With other Netflix shows, we tend to stay on a schedule. Like Teenage Bounty Hunters, I think I would get … They’re pretty generous. I would have four days for an editor’s cut, which was very helpful, because I always say at least one day to just catch up on dailies that I was behind on. Then doing my music usually takes a couple of days, and then like recuts and polish. I use all four of those days pretty intensely. A lot of shows don’t even give you that. Then director’s cut, whatever that was, I guess they get four days, two, three or four. Then producers would get four or five days. We really kept that moving along pretty snappily.

Sarah Taylor:

Are you doing alternating kind of you’re maybe episode two and then episode four, and then kind of bouncing back and forth between other editors?

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah. But we at least, on Teenage Bounty Hunters, it was nice because they shot one episode at a time. So many people are cross boarding now and that makes it a little trickier to figure out editing schedules.

Sarah Taylor:

Now, I know that you have been giving back to the editing community by doing lots of interviews like this one. You’re also an artist in residence at the Manhattan Edit Workshop. How did you get involved with that? And why did you feel like it was important to do that?

Liza Cardinale:

Well, that was just Janet Dalton was her name, she’s an instructor there. She reached out to me via Jenni McCormick, who’s the director of ACE who is oftentimes my-

Sarah Taylor:

Yay, Jenni. We love Jenni.

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah, she’s 100% my fairy godmother in all ways of my career. That was just, yeah. Jenny sends me an email saying you should do this. I said, okay, I don’t know what this is, but sure. Jenni told me to do it. I’m doing it. Then I connected with Janet. Really, I just sat in with her students a couple of times and I’d watch some of their work and let them ask me questions. They were people trying to make a career shift into editing. I’m not sure if any of them were even fresh out of college, maybe one of them, but they knew nothing about the world professionally.

Liza Cardinale:

So, they needed to know I could help them a lot with understanding how it works, politically, how you job hunt and what kind of first jobs you might need to take, like mine. Just take whatever you can. You might have to do night shift, you have to take the jobs that no one else wants to do, that is how you begin. I think it just comes naturally to give back because I don’t know, I’m just that kind of friend. I see other editors as my friends. If I can help them, of course I want to, and I’m always so grateful to get advice and help too, I just think it’s a really great community that way, where we … Usually, we’re not huge ego people. Usually, we’re like happy behind the scenes, supportive type people. We work best when we’re helping each other get ahead. I don’t feel competition with my fellow editors.

Sarah Taylor:

You mentioned when you first started, you got to shadow two women, which back then was a big deal, that you had the editor and the assistant editor were two women. You mentioned, touched on like, you might’ve become an editor quicker if maybe you were a man. What are your thoughts on like, how do we make the post-world more equitable and how we bring more diversity into the edit suite and help shape what’s behind helping create the stories with people that are actually in the world and it’s not just homogenized as it has been for a long time?

Liza Cardinale:

It just seems like it’s 100% happening right now. I’m not sure all the mechanisms of that, but showrunners and studios are making a huge effort to increase their diversity. I know that because, for one thing, I get offered a lot more jobs because they’re very often looking for female editors, or I recently interviewed with studio executive at 20th Century Studios. It’s not Fox anymore, it’s just called 20th Century Studios. He had called my agent saying, I need to meet some non-white guys, so send me. I just need more. I need more diversity in my Rolodex. I just need people, so he sent me and a couple African-American editors over to meet with him. I think that’s what it takes. It takes outreach. It takes it being a priority from the people who have the hiring power to do it.

Liza Cardinale:

I’m not sure why, but I think there’s a lot of inclusion writers going on so they need to get to that 50% mark. I’m so grateful for that. I think it’s excellent. Now, a lot of people in socio-economic lower kind of poverty world, they don’t know about a lot of these jobs that we have. A lot of people don’t know what editing is, or how to be a PA, or any of these. It’s just not around their world a lot. That divide, I don’t know how to bridge exactly, except for something like a podcast is accessible to anyone. Hopefully, people will listen to that or try to get information to schools. Yeah, that I think is something that’s an important next step is just trying to get the word out there that these kinds of jobs exist and that you might have a talent for this kind of work and you just don’t even know it because you’ve never heard of it.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. I think in our industry, it’s very much like, oh, so-and-so says there’s this job, and so we’re kind of all sort of getting work from somebody we know. It is opening up that world to everybody. There’s programs I know in Canada where they are offering internships to BIPOC people and people that wouldn’t typically be invited to the table, which is what we need to do. I feel like, in some cases, I don’t know what it’s like, maybe in the States, maybe you can touch on this, but up in Canada, we often have the choice to who we get to choose as our assistant. There’s one editor that I … Cathy Gulkin, she’s a documentary editor here in Canada.

Sarah Taylor:

She is so brilliant. She said, “Whenever I hire, I always try to hire somebody that doesn’t look like me.” I think that’s like a huge thing that we can take forward if we have the ability to hire, to not keep filling our spots with people that look like everybody else, because then we’ll have more voices in the room. I’m wondering how it’s like in the States for you, or in Hollywood, if you have any say in that sort of stuff.

Liza Cardinale:

I do have say in who my assistant is. Now, I’m very attached to my current assistant.

Sarah Taylor:

That’s fair too, yeah.

Liza Cardinale:

I’m not going to quit her until she quits me, but she is also … She doesn’t look like me. She’s younger. She’s half Mexican immigrant, but I do think that I would certainly make a push to hire somebody who was having a hard time getting opportunities who I felt like they had the enthusiasm and the drive to learn. It’s a really hard thing to take a risk on somebody when you’re doing remote work, because then you can’t be in the room educating them. I think that’s what it takes is, if somebody doesn’t have the experience, which is very common for a lot of these people trying to break into the business that they’re not in it yet, they’re going to have experience that’s not necessarily relevant.

Liza Cardinale:

But if they have intelligence and drive and a generous person in the office, then they can learn anything the way I learned at the Playboy channel.

Sarah Taylor:

Everybody needs to work at the Play … I’m just kidding.

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah, and then I learned in time, my next bigger job as an assistant was the Sarah Connor Chronicles. Full of visual effects, but I had to learn all about like Anna Max. Such great people there helped me out too. But you do have to be a quick study. It’s okay to know nothing, but you have to be able to pick things up pretty quickly, because nobody can stop their work and just teach you all day long.

Sarah Taylor:

But I think hearing somebody, like you say that, to say, you don’t have to know everything, and that as long as you’re willing to learn, you will figure it out. Where I feel like, maybe it’s typical, or it’s been said before, but often, I think women will be like, well, I don’t know all the things so I might not take that job. Or a man will typically be like, well, that’s fine. I don’t know the system. I’ll just do it. I’ll just do it.

Liza Cardinale:

[crosstalk 00:49:10]. Yeah.

Sarah Taylor:

To hear women who are successful, say, “I didn’t know everything, but I figured it out. I learned, and it was part of my job and it was amazing.” I think young people in the industry need to hear those kind of stories and know that you don’t have to know everything because you’re starting and every show is going to be different and it’s going to have its own thing that you’re going to learn and figure out, right?

Liza Cardinale:

Exactly. Yeah. You just have to be friendly. You just have to have a good attitude and be open, and do not be afraid to ask questions, because all of us will say this. We’d rather you ask the question than do it wrong and make it up. You know what I’m saying? You don’t know how to do something, there is no shame in that. Usually, it can be taught pretty quickly.

Sarah Taylor:

You mentioned remote working. As we all know, amidst of COVID, you had just wrapped up Dead to Me when you got the lockdown, but you did get back in the edit suite because you recently … Well, the show Social Distance, which just was released. Well, when we’re recording this, yesterday, I watched the first three episodes. Quite enjoyed it. How did you get onto that show? What was the process like working remotely, I’m assuming, on a show all about the pandemic?

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah. I was three months into safer at home with just being trapped in a house with my husband and child. Her school had closed down. She’s, she’s five. So, I was still a bit in that shocked frame of mind of like, how vigilant do we have to be? How big is this threat? There’s just a little bit of stress going on all the time. When they contacted me from Tilted, the production company that does Jenji Kohan’s production company that did Orange is the New Black and Teenage Bounty Hunters. That’s why they called me because I had already worked for them.

Liza Cardinale:

When they contacted me, I was thrilled to get back to work, but also a little concerned about, how am I going to rewire my brain to focus on something else. Maybe it was good in a sense that it was commenting on the pandemic itself because that’s where all of our thoughts were anyway, but it was enough of an escape from my own internal anxiety about it, to just be able to work, to get into some normalcy of a routine. It felt really good. I don’t have a space to work at my home, so it’s a bit complicated for me. My place is just really small.

Liza Cardinale:

I had to rent a little room for my friend who has a photo studio. I just locked myself away. There were no windows, no furniture, no comfy couch, like you usually get in an editor’s room. But it worked out. It was great. They rented me the Avid. It was just like my little workstation. We decided to get on Slack. We just said that pretty quickly. That’s not something I’ve ever used on a job before, but I think it’s actually quite brilliant because then your own email doesn’t get clogged up with all this little chatter, and it was great.

Liza Cardinale:

We’d have different channels based on the episode number, and then we’d have general channel, so we could all connect about things we all needed to know, so incredibly helpful to have that. We felt a bit of connection was going on between the whole team all the time. I had my assistant far away. We had a VFX editor. We had a lot of media coming and going in and out. The visual effects were extremely complicated and a lot of things in my script there’d be no coverage for. The editors had to generate the content from scratch. I’d have Hannah, my assistant, doing like screen recordings of Google searches and screen grabs of all these different apps. It was tough. It was definitely not the easiest job.

Sarah Taylor:

Because I knew you cut the first episode, as I watched it, I was like, oh, this looks very complicated, but it worked great. Can you give just a brief synopsis of what Social Distance is about?

Liza Cardinale:

It’s an anthology series. So, every episode is its own unique story with its own cast. They don’t fit together in any way except the timeline, I suppose. It starts as quarantine pretty much is new. It starts in New York City with my episode where he is a recovering alcoholic who’s going to AA meetings. That’s the thing that pops up throughout the episode is AA meetings are on Zoom now. Are they as effective? Are they feeling connected? It’s hard to know. Then he goes down a rabbit hole of his own version of doom, scrolling, just looking at his ex-girlfriend’s Instagram page and seeing that she has a new boyfriend and all these things that drive him a little crazy.

Liza Cardinale:

It was a tough episode because most of it is just one guy alone, not a ton of dialogue, unless he’s talking to somebody on a video chat. Usually, he’s just the lonely dude scrolling the internet. I just have shots of his face that they recorded. All the actors had to record themselves with iPhones. I think they used iPhones for everything, but they somehow patched to a SD card. I don’t know how that worked, but so they recorded all their own stuff. Maybe a PA came to their house. I’m not sure. All the actors lived different places.

Liza Cardinale:

It wasn’t all shot in LA or anything. It was shot all over the country so that there was a lot of severe coordination going on behind the scenes that I was not privy to. For me, the process was fairly simple and that I just downloaded my dailies every morning and they were sunk up and they looked like normal dailies, so I didn’t have to figure out how to get things off an iPhone or anything.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. That’s good.

Liza Cardinale:

But yeah, it was unique figuring out the tone of that too, and how strict we had to be about, what were the rules of it? A lot of these things were worked out as we went that you had to always … All right, I didn’t say the most important thing about it, which is the entire thing is in screen genre. The movie, Searching, was done, which I watched for research. That entire movie takes place like you’re watching a laptop screen. You sometimes see the person if their camera is on, but otherwise, you’re not going to see them, and you’re just going to see the stuff they’re typing or the things they’re looking at on their desktop.

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah, that was the genre that we were locked into. We used a lot of different apps. Every script had different apps written into it and you can show them as long as it represents accurately what the app does, then you don’t get into legal trouble with it.

Sarah Taylor:

Oh, I didn’t know that. That’s good to know.

Liza Cardinale:

I don’t even know if they had to pay, to say Instagram, as long as it looked like a real Instagram, but don’t quote me on that. I’m actually not sure, but I know that we had to be very careful about accuracy, like with Zoom and all that stuff. Many meetings about all those tiny details.

Sarah Taylor:

There’s so, so many details. Because even in the one, the first AA meeting, there is what? You probably know how many people were in the meeting.

Liza Cardinale:

I think there were maybe just 24 in the first one, something like that. It was a lot of those squares.

Sarah Taylor:

There was a lot of squares. It was great because I think a lot of people would probably feel as like, that is exactly, I didn’t go to an AA meeting, but I’ve had many different meetings, different conferences I’ve gone to where you see … That’s what we saw. We’ve been seeing for the last nine months. I think you did a really great job of merging all those different elements together. Yeah, him with his laptop on and you see him recording in photo booth. There were just so many elements where I was like, wow, there’s so many things. I can only imagine what your script was and like what you had.

Liza Cardinale:

I think I had 12 video layers, at least. If they tell me to change something, I’d be like, this could take me three hours and 20 minutes of render time, so I’ll just make a note of that.

Sarah Taylor:

Are you sure you want me to do that right now? Okay.

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah. You’re not going to sit here on my ever cast stream while I make changes.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. How did that go for you? Not getting to be with the director in the room. Was that something that was hard for you or was that an easy transition?

Liza Cardinale:

It was okay doing the video streaming. It’s just awkward and there were a lot of technical problems. I would just get booted out spontaneously or their picture would freeze. There’s just a lot of like, stop, stop, wait, refresh, change your bandwidth, turn your video off, mute your microphone. It over-complicates the situation. I think video chatting with five people is always a little awkward because you never know when it’s your turn to talk, and no one’s really looking at each other. It’s definitely not ideal, but it worked.

Liza Cardinale:

It helps that I knew everybody. I didn’t know the showrunner, Hillary, but I knew the rest of the people, the producers that were in the rooms. They were the same people I had just worked with in Teenage Bounty Hunters. That helped a lot, because like my current show, I’m doing a show called On The Verge with Julie Delpy, French actress. I’ve never been in a room with her at all. We had the job interview on Zoom. We’ve done some streaming sessions with her, like always full of huge technical glitches. She’s a super scatterbrained creative individual, so I never even know when she wants to talk to me. She’ll just say, “Let’s do a session, 10 minutes. I’m ready.”

Liza Cardinale:

I’ll be like, okay. I go to make sure everything’s plugged in right, and my microphone is muted. There’s always new challenges with remote work. It’s just not as organic as someone dropping into your room to have a moment of realness, like a human connection moment that’s not just business. No, every moment you’re interacting with someone, it is scheduled, it is limited timeframe. It is all business, no chit chat. Plus, there’ll be other people listening.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, which you kind of miss that intimacy of … Sometimes there’s an intimacy with director-editor moments, where you’re kind of playing therapist sometimes. You’re learning about whatever happened the night before, or whatever happened on set and probably don’t get to do some of that stuff.

Liza Cardinale:

Find those little moments of connection and relationship. They matter a lot in the editing room and on the screen, they matter just as much that I’m feeling connected to the people making the show, so that I understand what they’re looking for so I can deliberate. You know what I mean?

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Liza Cardinale:

What their values are, who they are as a person, what’s their sensibility, what’s their sense of humor? It’s all information to channel into editing.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. Have you figured out any tricks on how to find some of that stuff now that you’ve done your second show now in this world?

Liza Cardinale:

No, I’m basically just in survival mode, just get through it until life can be normal again. This is never going to be my favorite way to work. I’m in a slightly better environment now because the other editor of the show I’m doing, she had an extra little room in her backyard that I can rent from her. We have a bit of communion between us, which is great. Yeah, we can show each other stuff, and she can translate all the French stuff to me because I don’t fully understand it. She’s a native French speaker as well. That’s really great.

Sarah Taylor:

That’s perfect. Have you done other shows in other languages?

Liza Cardinale:

Well, there was a bit of Gallic in Outlander, but I highly doubt that any of those actors were really speaking it correctly. We didn’t quite worry about it too much. I think there was a Gallic consultant guy who’d be on set and he had really weird hair and he would sometimes watch cuts and try to get us to ADR things that they were really off. We would get them to pronounce, to repeat their performance, so they pronounce things right. But most of the audience is not really Gallic.

Sarah Taylor:

Probably not that many people.

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah. They’re just reading the subtitles. But the French people, this show is made for the French audience, so the French has to be correct.

Sarah Taylor:

How are you finding that work? I’m working on a French show right now as well, and I don’t speak French. But it’s a docuseries, but yeah. It definitely takes, for me, it’s like a whole other … my brain is working so much harder because I’m like … You’re trying to make sure the translation, but get the body language and get the right sense. Yeah, it’s definitely a little more challenging, that’s for sure.

Liza Cardinale:

I find it almost impossible to judge if somebody’s being funny, or even good acting, I find it a lot harder to judge, because I barely understand. I know a bit. I’ve studied French, but the way people actually speak is slang. They’re mumbling and throwing things around. It’s going right over my head. I’m just going to have to rely on Julie for that. She actually has her own Avid so she can watch tapes, and maybe she’s even going to cut some stuff. I’m not sure, but she has all the dailies, and so she can maybe make selects. I don’t know. It’s all very new in the process, but she will definitely tell me if there’s a better French read. She didn’t expect me to be fluent, so it’s okay.

Sarah Taylor:

You’ll pick up some stuff, I’m sure.

Liza Cardinale:

It’s kind of fun. Yeah, exactly.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, it is fun.

Liza Cardinale:

I think I’m learning some. French people are so passionate and shouty when they [crosstalk 01:02:43]. It’s fun.

Sarah Taylor:

I have a couple more questions and one of them I think is very important. What are the things that you need to have in your edit suite that make you feel like a normal human being?

Liza Cardinale:

Well, I always have nice little dim lights. I have essential oils and a diffuser. I like to pretend that my workplace could be a spa.

Sarah Taylor:

Is there a specific smell that is like you use certain scenes? Do you have like a moon one?

Liza Cardinale:

Well, I only have lavender and eucalyptus, just because they’re both universally appealing. So, if somebody else is coming in …

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, and they’re very calming.

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah. They’re calming, they’re soothing, they’re cleansing of the environment. I like for my room to be a place that people enjoy entering, and I’m talking more normal editing life, not COVID editing life. I try to keep it peaceful. I don’t have a lot of stuff in here. I keep lighting kind of dim and all over the room if I can. I have little spritz of sage spray. As you know, you can’t really like burn a sage stick if somebody comes in and acts all crazy and then leaves your room, and you want to just clear out juju. I use this little sage spray. That’s it. Usually, I have a picture of my daughter up.

Sarah Taylor:

Nice. Do you have a set routine of how you like to work? Do you take walking breaks? Do you eat lunch at your desk or do you make sure you eat lunch elsewhere? What is your sort of editing day routine?

Liza Cardinale:

The most exercise I get is switching from a sitting to a standing desk. I try to do that a few times a day. I don’t do a ton of walking, but I just got a Fitbit to try to encourage myself to get away from the desk. I think that I usually just get so engrossed in my work that I forget about my body and how to take care of it. But I think quarantine taught me that there are lots of great exercise videos on YouTube, and I should just take a break and do a half hour Pilates thing or yoga thing. And it’s not in my routine yet, sadly, but I have a yoga mat here. That’s another thing I always keep an edit room is a yoga mat and some foam rollers for trying to stretch out the shoulders that get a little too tense sometimes.

Sarah Taylor:

Yes. Do you have any tips for editors who are making maybe a career transition into, coming from documentary and to television or assisting into editing?

Liza Cardinale:

My tips would be to have a great attitude to everybody that you meet so that they want to hire you later. Because even if they don’t have a job for you right now, they might have a job for you in three months. That timing is a big part of it. But if you show consistency and genuine enthusiasm and a work ethic, that will go so far, even more than actual skills, I think, because we’ve all come across people who bring unpleasant vibe to the office and then everybody’s a bit uncomfortable. I think that a lot of we’ll make allowances for somebody who’s just … You’re just going to play well with others, you’re going to fit in here. My husband is actually making a career transition. It has nothing to do with editing, but he was a software engineer for 20 years and now he’s studying to become an architect.

Sarah Taylor:

Oh wow.

Liza Cardinale:

It’s totally different than what he’s been doing, but he is such a knack for it. It’s clearly what he should have been doing all along, but that’s okay. I don’t think it’s ever too late to make a switch, especially if you have a passion, but I do think you need to also have a knack for it or else it’s going to be pretty hard to do a career transition later in life. So, you want to feel like it has to feel kind of easy and right when you’re doing it. I don’t think editing is something that’s very easy to teach, especially when it comes to just the instincts of it. That way that you just have to keep changing things till it feels right.

Liza Cardinale:

I don’t know how to teach that to a person, but I think if you have that, you probably know it, just because people watch your work and they’ll connect to it and they’ll get it and they’ll feel something when you want them to feel something. Yeah, I’d say don’t attempt it if you’re finding it a huge challenge because it is a pretty tough gig even when you’re good at it. But I want to encourage people for sure, if you love it, if you’ve tried it and you love it and the hours fly by and the sun goes down, that’s what you’re looking for, that’s the sweet spot. Anyone who feels that way about editing should absolutely pursue it as a career because it pays well. There’s tons of jobs. There really are tons of jobs once you’re in the flow of it.

Sarah Taylor:

During COVID, we’ve definitely seen it, people want content. We’ve always wanted content, and we always want it … We need it. Now more than ever, yeah, it’s not going to stop. How we do it is changing, but we always need to tell stories.

Liza Cardinale:

Right. There are like what? Four more streaming services just started in the last year.

Sarah Taylor:

It’s wild.

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah. A lot more, a lot of opportunity there.

Sarah Taylor:

I feel like you’ve given us a lot of great information and lots of, I don’t know, exciting tips for the young editors out there or people wanting to be an editor. Yeah.

Liza Cardinale:

Yeah. I guess the only tip I would give is just to keep meeting people and keep asking questions. Not only do you learn from asking a question, but the person you’re asking will come to trust you based on your questions, because they’ll see, oh, this person has a really active interest and a curiosity, and they’re asking the right questions. They’re really getting to the heart of this and they care. I find that, as far as who I help get a leg up, it’s always the people who just wanted to come into my room and hang out. Maybe it’s a PA wanting to come in and just see what I do and ask me once in a while without intruding.

Liza Cardinale:

But when they see a moment, they could ask me, “Well, why did you make that choice?” Then it’s kind of fun to talk about that. Because usually, we’re just so in our internal brain. I think you’ll find a lot of editors love to talk about why they do the things that they do.

Sarah Taylor:

Well, thank you so much for joining me today. It was so great chatting with you.

Liza Cardinale:

Oh yeah, you too.

Sarah Taylor:

Good luck with your French series. I hope it all goes well. I look forward to seeing it in the future. Stay safe, stay well.

Liza Cardinale:

Thank you.

Sarah Taylor:

Thank you so much for joining us today, and a big, thanks goes to Liza. A special, thanks goes to Jane MacRae and Jenni McCormick. The main title sound design was created by Jane Tattersall, additional EDR recording by Andrea Rusch. Original music provided by Chad Blain. This episode was mixed and mastered by Tony Bao. The CCE has been supporting Indspire – an organization that provides funding and scholarships to 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.

[Outtro]

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

Jenni McCormick

Animé, produit et 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 Blain

Sponsor Narration by

Paul Winestock

Commandité par

Vancouver Short Film Festival

Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 039: Edit Chats with Kimberlee Mctaggart CCE and Thorben Bieger CCE

The Editors Cut - Episode 039: Kimberlee Mctaggart CCE and Thorben Bieger

Episode 039: Edit Chats with Kimberlee Mctaggart, CCE & Thorben Bieger, CCE

Today's episode is the online Master Series that took place on May 19th, 2020. Edit Chats with Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE and Thorben Bieger, CCE.

The Editors Cut - Episode 039: Kimberlee Mctaggart CCE and Thorben Bieger

Thorben is a CSA nominated editor who has edited several series and a number of features including The Child Remains, Heartbeat et All the Wrong Reasons.

Kimberlee is a Gemini award winning editor of TV series, docs, and feature films such as Blackbird and the upcoming Little Orphans. Kimberlee et Thorben have worked together on several series such as Call Me Fitz, Pure et Diggstown. They discuss their work, and what it’s like to carve out a successful editing career while working and living in Nova Scotia.

This event was moderated by Amanda Mitro.

À écouter ici !

The Editor’s Cut – Episode 039 – Edit Chats with Kimberlee Mctaggart, CCE  &Thorben Bieger, CCE

Speaker 1:

This episode was sponsored by Filet Production Services and Annex Pro Avid.

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 part of ancestral territory. It is important for all of us to deeply acknowledge that we are on ancestral territory that as 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’s episode is the online master series that took place on May 19th, 2020. Edit chats with Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE and Thorben Bieger, CCE. Thorben is a CSA nominee editor who has worked on several series, and a number of feature films, including The Child Remains, Heartbeat and All the Wrong reasons. Kimberlee is Gemini award-winning editor of TV series, docs and feature films such as Blackbird and the upcoming Little Orphans. Kimberlee and Thorben have worked together on several series, such as Call Me Fitz, Pure and Diggstown. They discuss their work and what it’s like to carve out a successful editing career, while working and living in Nova Scotia. This event was moderated by Amanda Mitro.

[show open]

Amanda Mitro:

Welcome everybody to the masters series from Halifax, out in Nova Scotia here. I’m joined by Kimberlee McTaggart and Thorben Bieger. Thank you to the CCE for having us. And I guess should open up with introductions. Who wants to go first?

Kim McTaggart:

Thorben does.

Thorben Bieger:

Well, yes, this is exciting to be here. Anyway, my name is Thorben. I’m a picture editor. I live in Hubbard, Nova Scotia, and I have been working in the film and television business in one way or another for, I guess, almost 20 years now and editing for, I guess, the better part of 12 or 14 years. I’ve stopped counting anyway. I’m looking forward to having an interesting conversation about editing and related topics tonight.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I’m Kim McTaggart. I’ve been editing for over 30 years now. Pretty much all those years in Halifax. The other day I added up how much I worked on different shows in Newfoundland, about a year and a half. So we’ll throw that in there too. I was one of those kids who loved television and knew from, I think the time I was in grade seven, that this is what I was going to do, was make TV shows. I went to film school at York University back in the ’80s when it was all film, there was no digital. I’m aging myself there. It was just shortly before digital started to come in. It was all on Steenbeck’s and Moviola’s and benches, and the first two or three of my career was all on Steenbecks and benches, actually probably the first six years.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Then we moved into digital and yeah, do I miss it? No. Digital has been the best thing ever. Yeah, so I’ve been working on in Halifax the whole time, did a lot with the National Film Board in the beginning, so a lot of documentary, but then I moved into drama, a lot of comedy actually, and I still do the odd documentary, corporate videos for the liquor store. That’s the thing about the East Coast editing, you do it all. But mostly these days I do television series and mostly with Thorben.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Yeah, we’ve worked a lot together over the years. I guess I can add a little bit to my bio in parallel to what Kim was saying. I barely registered the existence of the film industry in Canada or film industry at all. Even though I liked watching movies when I was young, I went to university and studied sciences and worked in environmental sciences for six or seven years. Then somewhere along the way, it was a great gig, but there was something else out there for me. And once, eventually I guess my sister married a film producer and that gave me, opened my eyes to that being a possibility. My music recording was particularly of interest to me before that.

 

Thorben Bieger:

That was really my way into post production in recording and mixing music, a lot of similarities. With a couple of nepotistic breaks, I guess it was back in 1999, I took a leave of absence from my real job and came to Halifax to work as second unit boom operator on Lexx. That has happened to a lot of people on that show and that led to opportunities, battlefield promotions. And within a short time, I was doing recording sound on commonly called the second main unit. 

 

We would have five page scenes with all the stars on second unit just to [inaudible 00:04:58]. From there, I had some chances to work in post-production on the next season and I’m still on it 20 years later. So I guess I’m not going back.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Cool.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I’m just going to add a little to that story. In post, I don’t know if other people have experienced this, but whenever the producer has a cousin or brother or brother-in-law and they’re going to put him somewhere in a department, they stick them in posts, because they think they can do the least damage. And we heard the brother-in-law is coming, I’m like, “Oh shit,” and then it’s torment. I’m like, “Oh, okay. Sometimes it works out really well.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Work out well eventually.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Have either of you guys worked outside of Halifax or has it just been mainly the Maritimes for both of you?

 

Kim McTaggart:

For me, early in my career, I did a lot of what’s called dialogue editing back when it was still on film. And you basically, you checker boarded dialogue that people are probably … Well, these are all editors checker boarding on your digital screen. It was all done live with film audio. I would take all the production sound and checker board it all on big benches that were six feet wide, and reeling and all that sort of stuff. And nobody, Atlanta Canada did that. I would go to Newfoundland to do every film there was, and that brought me over there about three or four times.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Then I did it in my very first comedy series, television series I ever got national show was called Gullages, that it took place in Newfoundland with a local producer Bill McGillivray. That was my big break. That was two seasons of that over there. And also in my early days doing a lot of work with the National Film Board, one of my mentors was a sound editor from, who originally started in Montreal, Les Holman. He would take me to Montreal to work on a lot of stuff, [inaudible 00:06:43] things and that sort of thing. So yeah, in the early days when I was doing sound, I was traveling all over. But since then, it’s pretty much been confined to my basement.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Yeah. That’s much the same for me. I’ve worked in Newfoundland a tiny bit. I worked on The Gavin Crawford Show in Toronto, I don’t know, 2003 or four or something like that for a few months, but for the rest of it, I believe almost everything that I’ve done has been in Halifax. And as Kim just mentioned also, for the last years I don’t know, six, seven years or more, almost everything I’ve done has been from my home office, and from my basement.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Did you find it different working, I guess in Toronto versus how you typically work out here?

 

Thorben Bieger:

Well, there’s a reason, I guess why most of my work has been here. I like it here. There was a time when, of course, most people remember that post production was done in post facilities, still commonly is, but it was not really possible to do it anywhere else. There was a time when it was a fantasy to be able to have the equipment at home and very suddenly that became pretty straight forward. It’s always been, that’s always been the direction that I wanted to move in any way, rather than going to where the work is. It was exciting to work in Toronto for a while.

 

Thorben Bieger:

It was a break to work at the time I was working with Dean [inaudible 00:08:07], who was the editor, and he brought me along to work on the show and I lived in the edit suite. I’d gone in the Wellesley on the fifth floor of that building that some people might recognize in St. Nicholas.

 

Amanda Mitro:

So the both of you, I guess, have experienced the digital revolution in post-production, and maybe you guys can speak a bit to how things changed from working on like those big, massive machines to computers that you can fit in your pocket almost.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Well, I’ll let Kim take that one because I came in and I started working on Avid, so I’ve seen the hardware, but I’ve never, never had the chance to work with it.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Yeah. Part of the reason I ended up staying here, not doing anything to further field is when digital did come in, I invested in the equipment and I would rent out the equipment. It was an older system back then called Media 100, which actually had a far superior picture, finishing picture. So we would, was doing a lot of online, more so than off-lines. But I ended up, I think I had four systems at one point, so they were rented out to various series and that kept me hopping. And then I’d be off cutting on other shows, usually on an AVID, which I really wanted to own. But then eventually I did buy a used one and then upgraded it to the top of the line model.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I remember that cost me $110,000. It was like, the whole system was probably about $120,000, but the thing is you would rent it and get lots of money for it. So it all worked out in the end. In fact, it was great. Yeah, I went right from when everything was outboard, you needed all this other stuff to make it work. I couldn’t work at home. I needed my office, and all of that, but as computers became faster and faster, you didn’t need that outboard stuff. The computer did all the work and now it’s like, what we do with a laptop is just astounding. There of course is no real rental market anymore, because everybody can own their own.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I’ve seen it go the whole way. I don’t know what else to say about that, except I love where we’re at with it now. It’s just, it’s the best. And I mean we’re all going to be doing so much more of it now with this COVID-19. I mean  Thorben and I have been living the quarantine life for the last six or seven years, the way we work, so nothing will change for us. But I think we’re going to see more and more people working the way I do or the way we do here in Atlanta, Canada.

 

Amanda Mitro:

How do you think that’ll open up the possibilities for working with people further afield, like collaborations between countries and continents and just opening that whole thing up?

 

Thorben Bieger:

I think it will. Some producers that I’ve worked with are made it part of their style to, or just experience with working remotely and with putting together teams that are geographically distant, and others not so much. I guess it’s just what their experience is. I’ve worked on teams where there was an editor in Nova Scotia and one in Toronto and one in Los Angeles. This was just, they were quite familiar with that process and it was seamless. Other people don’t, other producers who hadn’t done that just might be more familiar with just centralizing things.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And apart from the fact that we’re going to be coming up with new guidelines and that kind of thing for social distancing and for hygienic productions, it’ll be easy to implement that in post.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Yeah. We’ve already implemented, I think and internationally, I think people work that way. Like everybody in Toronto all works a certain way. Everybody’s together in their place and all that. It’s going to be new and exciting them, and maybe it will open up their possibilities, but there’s still, as we were talking about tax credits and provincial borders, which will still make it difficult for us to get hired in Ontario and vice versa and all of that. But still it makes it more possible, so you never know. Should we show, clip and talk about editing?

 

Amanda Mitro:

Quick question before we go to video, Jeffrey Fish wants to know, do you think that software platforms like Premier Pro, pushing for a shared project platform will create more possibilities for non-centralized post team workflows, or is there still a great benefit to post teams being together?

 

Kim McTaggart:

Well, I mean, Avid already has, can already do sharing. Jeff, have you ever been in CBC? It’s all network sharing, all that sort of stuff. It’s all there. I think people will get a taste of it now, because they’re really utilizing it extensively. I think those systems were more for sharing within the one building, like is how it’s really been used. And now people are taking their systems homes, because they have to, and they’re sharing it that way. So, yeah. Is there a benefit to everybody being in the same building versus that? We’ll find out. For producers or for a lot of folks, it’ll be financial what works out best but creatively, what works out best?

 

Kim McTaggart:

I mean we’ve been doing this for six or seven years, but I think back to the last project we did where we were all under the same roof on Call Me Fitz, four of us, all crammed together doing our work. There really is something to that too.

 

Thorben Bieger:

You really miss it when you’re gone. I think it’s a real, there is a trade-off and collaborating by notes. Well, for one, it depends on the quality of the notes. Some people are very good at giving detailed notes, but even in those cases, there’s something that’s lost when you don’t have intense hours in the same room together, which sometimes we still do. It’s not uncommon for a director or producer to come to where I live in Hubbard and spend part of a day. That’s usually as far as it goes. We might sport together for some hours on two or three consecutive days.

 

Thorben Bieger:

I think the driving factor; it used to be that an edit suite costs what, a couple of thousand bucks or more a week to rent and the schedule drove this style of working long hours in the same space. I miss there are pros and cons to the way we work. It always was, so it’s fairly solitary work, but it’s become much more so now with edit suite and at home.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Then of course there’s a whole issue of assistant editors who used to always be around and would see your work. I know on Call Me Fitz, we’d always make our assistant editor watch the show, because she had fine impeccable taste and would give us feedback and notes, like first person who ran through. You could still get that, but you tend not to, just because they’re not there in the room with you and they’re off doing their thing. You just don’t have the same relationship and the same reciprocal learning that goes on there. I don’t want to say the editor always passing through the assistant editor. It’s really a reciprocal thing. That’s a big issue in editing is the passing on of knowledge.

 

Thorben Bieger:

But I do think there’s room for the software to catch up with that or to create, for it to offer some functionalities that make that more possible. We were talking Kim and I just recently in final cut, and an earlier version had this desktop theater or functionality that allowed you to, it created a video chat in which you could stream your output to another person, and that you were able to see that person’s face on their web cam. There was actually, you could see facial reactions of the person you’re working with. And as long as your internet connection was good, after a few minutes of working like that, you’d forget that you’re not in the same room, and that feature was completely dropped and no one has picked up on it in the last decade, really.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And it’s surprising to me that that’s not being really developed further, because it seems there are no constraints technically to making that collaboration.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Yeah. Built in into all the Annalise will be that function to share.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Okay. Cool. All right. Did we want to do a clip?

 

Thorben Bieger:

I guess the first one that I would maybe present is called the Corridor. I think this one is interesting to me, it’s during the best years I think that I can remember as an editor in Nova Scotia. One of the great advantages of working here for me has been the variety of things that you could work on. In the really good times there’d be a series to work on in the summer and a telephone, and like a little bit to tell its own feature to work on, which often happened in the off season and maybe some short films or little things and things, really get how all kinds of different work and a nice variety.

 

Thorben Bieger:

The Corridor was a feature that I, it was around 2010 or ’11 I think, a science fiction feature shot in Nova Scotia. Had a cast of, an ensemble cast of five guys. It’s cabin in the woods, science fiction kind of movie. They discover a bizarre phenomenon that starts affecting their minds. I thought it was interesting to take a look at it because for one thing, it was a fairly small budget, and another thing that I found interesting over time, it’s been in some of the low budget features, people have tried to discover ways to get more, to go further with the small budget that they have. Sometimes that involves different shooting styles, doing a lot of oner’s or not shooting regresses. You get a certain style of films from that.

 

Thorben Bieger:

This one was interesting to me, because with the kind of ensemble cast that they had, it wasn’t really possible to do that. They didn’t really scrimp on coverage and lots of different angles, the sizes, because with five people in the room, you had to move around, but I’ll let you be the judge of that after you’re going to look at the clip.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Also, clip number one.

 

Speaker 10:

I think it’s talking to me. That’s signing. It’s given me a sign.

 

Speaker 11:

It’s insane.

 

Speaker 10:

Connect, connect, connect.

 

Speaker 12:

Wait. No, did this fuck up the rest of my tapes?

 

Speaker 13:

Oh yeah, because that is real important right now.

 

Speaker 14:

What’s that supposed to mean?

 

Speaker 13:

Well, it means who gives a shit.

 

Speaker 12:

You want to smack in the mouth?

 

Speaker 14:

Something bigger is happening here.

 

Speaker 13:

No, no, you’re right. You’re right. Maybe the time has come for us to set aside all these childish things, bobcat.

 

Speaker 12:

Says the guy who can’t come at all.

 

Speaker 13:

What did you just say?

 

Speaker 12:

You don’t know what to do with that. Why for yours, do you, hugsy? Do you need me to knock her up for you? Your wheel spins so fast, but the rest of you is just shooting blanks.

 

Speaker 10:

Oh, shit.

 

Speaker 14:

Thanks a lot fucker.

 

Speaker 10:

I swear to God, I didn’t say anything.

 

Speaker 14:

Oh, sure. Well, I guess you’re [inaudible 00:19:41].

 

Speaker 10:

Look, I didnt.

 

Speaker 12:

I don’t know how I knew. I thought we all know.

 

Speaker 14:

This is what’s happening. The corridors changing our mind.

 

Speaker 13:

Do you know what; you don’t even deserve a kid. You are a kid. You never got past high school football, your big bump baby.

 

Speaker 14:

Would you just listen to me? Look, why shouldn’t that place cross our wires like I did with the snowmobile or your cell phone? It’s opening up some sort of pathway out there, right? Well, what if it’s opening up a pathway in here too. It’s driving us out of our minds and into everyone else’s, and the one that I have to share is sick.

 

Thorben Bieger:

I was proud of this movie and who directed it, I think his words, I wasn’t actually at the premier, but he said on the first day when he started shooting movie, his plan was to make the best movie ever made. 

 

And by lunchtime on the first day, he just wanted not to make the worst movie ever made, because of the number of compromises that happen every day, while you’re shooting and all the problems that you just, and the things that you have to, the ideas you have to throw away because you just can’t do this and that. But there was something, they really were kind of like a group of people

 

Thorben Bieger:

The film is a cabin in the woods movie, and things very badly, but I think in a way I think they also were a little bit off in the woods and focused on something. I don’t know, I can’t tell too many stories about it because I wasn’t there, but I think some of the cast may have known each other anyway. Anyway they seem to form quite a good ensemble. And for me it was quite exciting to work on and a great team to be part of.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Cool. I think Jenna had a question, Jenna, I’m going to let you talk.

 

Jenna:

Hello. Hey, one question, you were saying about being remote editor. Right now, you guys working as a remote editor or you guys are working on projects that you already were working before this whole mess?

 

Thorben Bieger:

Right now I’m not working on a project at all, other than sorting through things in my office and working in my garden. There’s nothing really happening to work on in Nova Scotia right now.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Yeah. And I’m not working on anything either. The way the production cycles go, if we’re on a series issue in the summer, we’re usually done by February and then you wait for the cycle to begin. And now, as we know, everyone’s in a holding cycle, so not much going on yet.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Thank you. So maybe Thorben, you can speak a little more about what your process is for, when you’re approaching a scene or a project in general, but I know it’s sometimes easier to take it scene by scene.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Yeah. I’m not that methodical. Sometimes it changes. Some mornings I am or I approach things differently. Sometimes part way through, I realize that I’m making a mess. But if I What I’ve gotten into the habit of doing, especially when I’m working, for example in a series, and there’s a lot of material to get through is on the first pass of watching dailies and starting to cut something, I no longer worry about leaving a complete mess on the timeline. Sometimes I used to have this fear that someone might see what, someone might look at my work and progress, and I think, “What is that person thinking?

 

Thorben Bieger:

But now, I’ve found that if I just go through the material, and throw anything that I like on the timeline, maybe in a few places that are actual cuts or in a few places, it’s just a few different takes of the same line, my first pass sometimes is just … It’s not a cut at all. It’s just basically some selects and a few ideas. And what I found is that, when I do that, when I come back to that and just use that timeline with the selects on there as a starting point, sometimes it’s a much faster way for me to start putting something together, because of course, I’m still going to go back to the other material.

 

Thorben Bieger:

But those clips that I’ve pulled are more as reminders or as markers of what I was looking at or what I was thinking. And then looking at those will make me go back to other shots and say, “Well, okay, here’s how do I might do that.” It’s basically the first step is more about, becoming familiar with the material before it’s not a new cut, because I think for me, it’s a mistake to start cutting too soon to get … The temptation is to start fine cutting very quickly. And by doing this, it really is creating a step in which the very first so-called cut is really just, not even a, it’s not even a rough cut.

 

Thorben Bieger:

It’s just some selects. But then there are other days when I, for some reason you caught up on the wrong side of bed, start working completely differently. I’m not strict in that routine, but if I’m under had a lot of time pressure and I have to get through all this, then that’s usually the approach that I’ll take.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Do you find it when you find things kind of crystallize, when you start collaborating, when you go into the director’s cut?

 

Thorben Bieger:

For sure. In my first cuts, in the first assemblies that I will present to directors or producers, I’ll tend to stay close to the script and there may be … I may start getting ideas. I may see something that I’m not in love with or I think, “Well, I don’t think that part is necessarily, there’s something not working.” But no matter how well I read the script or how well I think I understand the piece, there are always surprises. And to often find myself re-interpreting what’s there based on conversations with the director, for example, who will explain why it was done a certain way, what they were looking for, and suddenly something that may have felt like it probably isn’t, because my eyes have been just a bit open to it a different interpretation of it.

 

Thorben Bieger:

I try not to become too attached, I guess, to my own interpretation. I guess the other philosophy that I’ve learned is that, editing doesn’t really start for real until there’s an assembly, until there’s a cut of a whole piece. Everything before that is legwork. And sure, it’s a creative process, but really the whole purpose of all that tedious legwork of putting together a piece is so that, you can then start tearing it apart and seeing it and changing it. I like to make it as presentable as possible, to put music in there and smooth it over to make it feel viewable, but all with the goal, just making it viewable so that I could start tearing it apart.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And for me, that’s really when the fun starts. Some of the things that you have in an early cut may stand the test and not change much, but nothing is spared from scrutiny at that point. And because it’s only then that you really see it for what it is.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Yeah. What was it like cutting, I guess like The Corridor you were saying is kind of like a cabin in the woods, so how did you find cutting like a suspenseful horror style film? What was your favorite part about it?

 

Thorben Bieger:

It was actually one of the early … I have to dig deep into my memory now, because this was, I think it was 2010 or ’11. It’s been some time, but it was an early, one of the earlier projects that I actually did in my basement. I remember, it was quite fun. There were times, my father was here for a visit and he was just sitting there watching it. It was the first time that he was observing what I was doing, the whole editing process. He was kind of just shaking his head at it. Yeah, I live out in the, kind of out in the woods myself, and so certainly it didn’t hurt. I wasn’t frightening myself quite yet. But it was nice to work that way.

 

Thorben Bieger:

At the same time, this was also an example where, because of schedules and the fact that I was working at home, it was a challenge to work together with the other … It was hard to schedule the time to work with other people. And back then we all had fast internet, but uploading high resolution cuts and sharing files, wasn’t quite as easy as it is now. It was more of a hybrid version of what we were doing. And sometimes I’d load everything into the car and drive to downtown and set up an edit suite somewhere, just to work for two afternoons with someone, because it was the only way to get at the time.

 

Amanda Mitro:

And just kind of going to throw this in there, Anthony Pete posed the question, for someone who feels stuck in ads and commercials, what’s your advice in successfully transitioning into narratives, whether TV or features?

 

Kim McTaggart:

I’ll go. I would say just you got to cut stuff. You got to cut for everybody and anybody who let you kind of film, you’re probably in, I don’t know where you’re at Anthony. I’m betting, you’re not in Halifax, because there’s not a lot of ads and commercials cut here. I’m betting you’re in Toronto, but I would just try and get in with co-ops, anybody doing short films, cut everything you can probably for free but just build a portfolio. And the other thing is assist in editing is another way in. If you’re cutting already ads and commercials, it may feel like a bit of a step down, but it’s a foot in as well.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Well this is something that we, Kim and I have a lots of common conversations about it. Assistant editing is really not what it used to be a lot of the time, because for me it was, and for many people, it was the way in. It was an apprenticeship opportunity. You get to work with material. First of all, you had access to an AVID back when there weren’t, when home computers couldn’t do this kind of thing. Over time, it’s become often a position that’s very much technical data management. There’s just not enough time on a typical editing room staff for the assistant to have energy and time, and the creative juices at the end of the day to start cutting scenes at night or whatever.

 

Thorben Bieger:

But if you can find your find opportunities to work in an editing department where there’s more than one assistant, where there’s a bigger team, that’s certainly a great way to get access to scenes. Even if it’s just in your spare time, even the editor doesn’t even know you’re doing it, you have those bins and all that footage there, you can cut it. I don’t know, don’t imagine that there are many editors out there who wouldn’t take an interest in watching what you’ve done and giving you feedback and encouraging that. I’ve had the opportunity to do it, but I don’t get to return that favor that much anymore these days, to give people that I’m working with scenes to work with.

 

Thorben Bieger:

If that’s an option to do that kind of thing, if there are opportunities for that, I would definitely look into it.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Assistants, they have a totally different job, and it doesn’t always lead into editing and that’s entirely true. And not every assistant editor wants to be an editor. If you are that type that do want to be an editor, make sure everyone knows it and that you do take those opportunities Thorben was talking about. And then maybe you will be given opportunities to cut. I know on a couple of my shows, usually I try and cut all my scenes right from the start, but there are times it’s gone so crazy, we just hand them off to assistants to cut a scene or two, and you don’t really worry if they’re good or, check your portfolio to see if they can do it. You don’t have time. You just say, “Please cut it,” and you get to see what they can do. The opportunities do exist there.







Thorben Bieger:

Yeah. In short films, Anthony, as Kim was saying before, film co-ops or any kind of opportunities like that to work on people’s short films. During the years that I worked as an assistant editor there were I don’t know if it’s, I guess there still those kinds of things here now, right? Because film [inaudible 00:32:11] and those kinds of programs, they’re really great ways, because during the time when you’re working as an assistant editor, you get to work on a scene here and a scene there, or maybe a section or some sound effects, whatever, but then working on it on a short film, it felt like a big step. You’re doing the whole cut and it’s a really good exercise I think. If you can get involved in any of those, it’s very useful too.

 

Amanda Mitro:

All right. Kim, do we want to look at one of your clips?

 

Kim McTaggart:

Sure. What I get up first is a clip from a show that is actually over 20 years old, but it’s still on my demo reel. I have reframed it for 16 by nine. I cheat, it’s actually four by three, because of course it was shot on beta cam or whatever the hell they were shooting on back then. But this is a show called Made in Canada, which just became available again on CBC Gem. So if you like what you see, go check it out. This was about a fictional film production company in Toronto, headed up by a bit of a buffoon, and his underlings one played by the showrunner/creator Rick Mercer and Leah Pinsent. So this scene has Peter Keleghan as the head of the production company, Leah Pinson and Rick Mercer.

 

Kim McTaggart:

What I loved about the show was, it was the first time we really got to cut comedy where the editing really played a big role in the comedy. I’d said I worked on a series before called Gullages, and it was show run and created by a feature filmmaker. It was a half-hour comedy with the heart of an art film. Whereas this one is very much fast paced. Comedy comes into cuts. It’s kinetic. Everything is shot with two cameras at all times. AB camera both for the most part were all usable shots. Often your B camera can be kind of karate, it’s just there because it is. But this one had a great shot, so I had tons and tons of coverage.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And I’m just going to show it and then I’ll talk a little bit about how I approached the scenes for this show. Anyway, so it’s a second clip Made in Canada.

 

Peter Keleghan:

And then it occurred to me, it’s only the characters in the shows that audiences are interested in.

 

Leah Pinson:

Not to the exclusion of story or larger themes.



Peter Keleghan:

Yes.

 

Leah Pinson:

What about say a good art film?

 

Peter Keleghan:

Come on, come on. Be serious. I’m talking about real stuff that people actually watch. It’s only character.

 

Rick Mercer:

What about special effects?

 

Peter Keleghan:

Okay. Granted, but only character in special effects. We’ve been wasting a fortune on scripts and story departments. It’s all character.

 

Leah Pinson:

On what do you base this?

 

Peter Keleghan:

I base it on all the bio pics and the biographies that are out there now and the walk of fame. Are there any television shows in the walk of fame? No, it’s all people. It’s celebrities.

 

Leah Pinson:

I think Lass he got a star.

 

Rick Mercer:

The dog, not the show

 

Leah Pinson:

The dog got a star.

 

Rick Mercer:

It’s a leaf. They give you a leaf in Toronto.

 

Peter Keleghan:

Anyway, that’s besides the point. What I’m saying is that television is essentially voyeurism. Our faces are the glass screen and we are looking in, not out.



Leah Pinson:

Can I quote you on that?

 

Peter Keleghan:

No. I think I may have read that somewhere.

 

Rick Mercer:

It doesn’t sound familiar.

 

Peter Keleghan:

I probably got some of it wrong, anyway.

 

Rick Mercer:

Well, Alan, I agree with you 100%. Anything else?

 

Peter Keleghan:

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Beaver Creek hasn’t been getting any ink this season, hasn’t it?

 

Rick Mercer:

Well, it’s been on the air for a long time. All the stories have been written.

 

Leah Pinson:

Most of them weren’t that favorable.

 

Peter Keleghan:

Right, so we set up a romance between two of the characters on the show and a parallel romance between two of the actors playing the parts, and we let the information out and people start watching. Maybe they get married on the show, but it’s for real and they have kids. And then the kids are on the show.

 

Rick Mercer:

You’re talking about breeding the actors.

 

Peter Keleghan:

Yeah. You think the Screen Actors Guild would have a problem with that?

 

Leah Pinson:

It’s a page one rewrite on God’s Script. That’s probably Writer’s Guild jurisdiction.




Kim McTaggart:

Julie says Made in Canada was terrific show and it was, it was really a great show. Four seasons on Gem right now. But yeah, I loved working on that show. I was telling Thorben I was young and eager then, and I poured over every single frame in that show. I remember my method was, I’d sit down with the dailies and there’d be a ton of them. And I would watch every single take including all the non-circle takes, everything. I kept copious notes. My big thing was, and the big thing on that show was every gag, gags were important, more important than the story. If we were running heavy, if a show was a minute heavy and you had to take seconds out of it, it was really easy just to pull out a joke here and there, but you were not allowed to.

 

Kim McTaggart:

There was no joke pulling. You could take out story. We’d take out some … I remember some episodes; I’m amazed that people can follow the story because the jokes had to be in there. But anyway, so that was what I treated the jokes like gold. I would build everything around all the gags and would pick the absolute best lines I thought could work for each gag, which frame size I would use. So I knew how to build around that. And also the whip pans that was a real hit and miss, because there was always a camera whipping around doing things and every now and then it would just do a perfect land on the perfect line, and those were pulled out.

 

Kim McTaggart:

So I’d have on my timeline, a chunk here, chunk there, chunk there usually the gags, and then I’d build around that because that was the most important stuff. And also they liked to punch in, punch in on a close up of the gag. So you had to have, make sure you have good wide shots for some other stuff. So that was a really fun show to learn how to cut comedy, because, well, it was all in studio for one thing. So it was really, you didn’t have to deal with any of that location stuff, so there was no technical problems ever. You were strictly dealing with performance of the actors.

 

Kim McTaggart:

The cast was amazing and gave you just great stuff. I used to always watch my … Since that show 23 years ago, I’ve started watching my takes always in backwards order. So I’ll watch take four first and three then two. It was because I realized on that show, I’d always tend to gravitate to the one that made me laugh first. And it was never, it wasn’t often the best take. It took me a while to realize that. I would just find it hilarious and that was it. That was the one. I started watching them backwards for that very reason. Anyway, I just want to show that, because I learned so much on that show, cutting that show and working with the showrunners on that show, which was basically Rick.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Was it common to find yourself at a dead end? How did you deal with that if you had the perfect whip pan, and the perfect something else and no way to connect them? Did that problem ever happen?






Kim McTaggart:

Well, you know what, you would think it could, but because two things, it was such a great cast and almost every director on that show, maybe it was a different time, more money, more days to shoot, probably a five day shoot. Now it’s commonly just four days, but there was so much coverage. There was so much coverage that you could pretty much build around whatever you wanted to build around. So yeah, it wasn’t too bad. Oh, there’s some notes, favorite line from Made in Canada, what’s the porn version of Beaver Creek called? Beaver Creek.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Yeah, that’s very funny. Then somebody says, “Yes, very funny, like Newsroom. Well, Newsroom is another great show that’s now on CBC Gem. If you’re a fan of Newsroom, you’ll remember the two reporters. One was Jeremy Holtz played one of them and the other reporter was played by Mark Ferrell, and Mark Farrell was the head writer on Made in Canada. I worked with him again later on This Hour has 22 Minutes. It had a real similar sensibility, funny yet just a touch mean.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Yeah, and very … Kind of just that clip, particularly is a good example, is full of inside jokes that I laughed several times, but there were just comments on the industry that people who aren’t in the industry might not find this funny.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Yeah. I learned the term from Mark Farrell inside baseball. He’s a big baseball fan too. I’d never heard that term before, but that show is inside baseball lots. The other cool thing about that show was no soundtrack or no music, none whatsoever. The only music we ever used was tragically hip. The theme song was tragically hip. Then maybe in the entire four seasons, maybe five times I got a tragically hip song to do a montage for. That was always just the best, the best when we got to do that. But yeah. So no music, no laugh, track nothing, which was pretty neat to it.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Did they end up doing a lot of improv or did they stick to a script?

 

Kim McTaggart:

No, no improv on that show. No. And the actors, I think weren’t comedians, they were actors. It’s not like they’d start riffing and coming up with all their own funny stuff. They pretty much stuck to the script and they were really great scripts. That was the best thing about that show is the writing.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Kim, also doesn’t that … That was the fairly early days of shaky cam, right? It may not have been the first, but I don’t, know how much of that there was before.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Probably not a half-hour comedy format. There certainly was in drama, The Hill Street, not Hill Street Blues, NYPD Blue or whatever it was called.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Yeah, homicide [inaudible 00:41:45].

 

Kim McTaggart:

Yeah. Were they on homicide all those shows? Yeah, they were on, but yeah, you didn’t see it much in a half hour comedy, and probably not in Canada. I’m just going to answer a question here, because they see my name. Kim, you spoke about loving the digital world of editing. How has working with film helped or hindered your schools in your career with the digital editing world? Well, I said I didn’t miss it and that’s true, but how has it helped or hindered it? It certainly hasn’t hindered. I think the thing I carried from the film days that has stayed with me is, when I’m watching a cut, I always try to go somewhere else and I won’t watch it here. Well, a few years ago I put it on a DVD and took it home and put it in, watch it on my TV, in my living room just somewhere else.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I think that comes from the days of cutting film. You couldn’t watch it on your little Steenbeck that was this big, you’d go get a theater and watch it and it would be different. You’d have people sitting with you, and it was always a real good experience to watch it with somebody else, watch it somewhere differently, so you could almost disconnect it from it a little bit. That’s something, it can be hard to do when you’ve been working on something for three weeks or three months, and it’s hard to pull away from it. So always make sure I go somewhere else, and I think that’s from my film days.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Yeah. Well certainly, it was an early lesson for me that, working on something and feeling really great about it, that feeling could evaporate painfully quickly when someone else was sitting next to you. You suddenly realize, “Oh, this is not … They’re not seeing that at all.” One’s own perception is so affected by being someone else watching the way an audience does, but I do the same thing, taking it upstairs, taking it anywhere other than … Even if it’s a different screen or a different room, and later on in the process with other people is … Because it does disconnect you from what youve kind of taken for granted. You assume that something’s working, but you notice very quickly if it’s not having the same effect on someone else, so you have to, resets your expectation.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Or you think it’s okay, “I’m not so bad. it’ll be okay, it’ll work.” Then somebody else sits with you and you go, “Oh God,” as soon as that cut comes up, you go, “No, it doesn’t work.

 

Thorben Bieger:

It’s much more common for that to happen then for you to realize, “Oh, it’s not as bad as I thought [inaudible 00:44:09], but they laughed.

 

Kim McTaggart:

That rarely happens.

Amanda Mitro:

There’s DGA [inaudible 00:44:15], what advice would you give students leaving college or university who want to be an editor? Secondly, what do you look for in a new assistant? What traits or skills make them attractive to experienced editors?

 

Kim McTaggart:

Well, I would say if you want to be an editor, two things, be an editor and cut everything that you can anywhere, a wedding video, your sisters, I don’t know the high school project, whatever, just cut stuff. And two, tell everybody you’re an editor. If that’s what you want to be, introduce yourself, tell people you’re an editor and that’s what you want to do. I mean that’s the big picture kind of stuff to do. The more practical stuff is yeah, to go the assistant editor route, which I see your second part is what traits or skills make them attractive to experienced editors.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I’ll go and then I know Thorben has stuff to say about that too. I think what makes a great assistant; obviously, you have to know the technical inside out. If you’re going to be working on the bigger shows, it’s going to be Avid. Know that Avid inside out and know everything that an assistant editor has to do and know it inside out. And secondly, what I’d be looking for is, assistant editors that want to be editors, I think is great. I mean  I’ve had both assistant editors who are just assistant editors. That’s all they do.

 

Kim McTaggart:

They have no aspirations to be an editor, and then others that do want to make that leap and want to do anything creative that you hand them, whether it be cutting the previously ons, putting in sound, doing your soundtrack, cutting scenes, anything like that. They just take it with great joy and do it. They may not be that great at it right away, but that’s all part of learning and they just do it.  So that’s what I would be I’d be looking for. Thorben?

 

Thorben Bieger:

Yeah, no, I think back to my own, what did I learn from and what did it take me time to learn? Some of those things were letting go of ideas that maybe were mine, but didn’t serve the film, and also what’s another thing that took me a long time to learn was, how to feel comfortable around, when suddenly a producer or a director was in the room. It is actually kind of , for me was unnerving, but spending a lot of time as an assistant editor and … It’s a low pressure place to be. You can watch so much going on and quickly, some of the aspects of the work are tedious, being there and being willing to absorb whatever you can, someone who’s willing to try anything.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Sometimes it might be straining out dialogue, but basically it’s a combination of knowing the software so well, that you can be helpful and make things easy and keep things really organized, and being game for trying anything creative.




Amanda Mitro:

The one thing I would say if you happen to be in Toronto and once all of the COVID thing is over, the CCE does have a fantastic assistant editing workshop with Paul Whitehead. Hes kind of  like the godfather of assistants.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Join the CCE. And if you’re in Toronto, go to Edit Con and meet editors and talk editing.

 

Amanda Mitro:

All right.  And I see that Jenna Spinola would like to pose another question. Hello, Jenna.

 

Jenna:

Hello again.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Hi.

 

Jenna:

Just following up this assistant editor subject, in the case how you guys see like  someone that is an editor, like I forget the name of the guy that was asking that he was working on commercial. He’s already a seasoned editor on commercials and he wants to move to features, how you guys see like an editor that is already an editor that wants to assist to learn?

Jenna:

Is it a good thing or are you guys saying, “Oh,” maybe it would be like Thorben said start to cutting small films or something like that?

 

Kim McTaggart:

I think it’s probably a combo of both. You know if he was a brand new assistant editor or just out of college, like we were just speaking to the other gentlemen, you know then its assisting is a good way to go. And I say cut anything, but for somebody who is already an editor and they’re just going to be working in a different medium, they’re still bringing all those editing skills and sensibilities. You’re absolutely right. They should really be trying to cut some short films and get out there and cut some, not your sister’s high school project, but a young up and coming director who is doing a short film, just anything that they can get their hands on.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And it might be, it’ll be a little easier for them, because they are an editor and they do have some sort of portfolio, even if it isn’t in short films and people will look at it and see what you’ve done. And if they see something in you and want to take a chance on you doing it, then that’s great. So





Thorben Bieger:

Well, I guess someone has to always be willing to hire you for the bigger project that you want to get. It depends on who that is, but it might be someone that you know, so that you have some kind of a relationship, with either they know what, you’ve worked with them before, maybe on a short film. But if it’s someone who’s completely unknown to you, you have to have some body of work to I think, to convince them. Or there has to be some kind of recommendation. Even when you’re moving from assistant editing to editing, sometimes in my own experience, there were times when I decided, “Okay, now I am an editor,” but I had to go back and do assistant editing jobs again.

 

Thorben Bieger:

There were times when I felt like, “At some point I’m going to not do that anymore,” but if the only opportunity that’s out there is assistant editor, in well, that’s what you do. And likewise, when you’re trying to maybe switch from one genre from commercials or from factual entertainment to drama, sometimes it might mean that you have to take a step back and make connections with other editors or with other, by working at a lower level in a different style, you’re meeting the other editors and maybe producers who then recognize you, and that goes all the way too.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Well, I’m just going to add one more thing. Just because there seems to be a lot of interest in how you get your jobs and everything, you know one thing I always say when you’re getting hired, how do you get hired? Do they know you? They already know your work and all of that. And yeah, that’s the answer, but really what it comes down to, I always say is trust. It’s what you’ve done your work, but it’s the trust that you built. They trust you. What I mean by they trust you is, you’re the one in there playing with this mound of material and pulling out the best takes and putting it together.

 

Kim McTaggart:

They have to trust your taste, your work method, that it’s going to be the best. When they come in and look at it and they like it, they go, “That’s great.” That’s probably, “She makes great choices.” So that’s probably going to be the best, something like that, but basically it’s trust between two people. So when you’re looking to become, meet other editors and you want to become an assistant and move up, make sure that that level of trust always is in everything that you do. Don’t flake out on anything. I always tell people, just work hard, just do your job and do it the hardest you can.

 

Kim McTaggart:

That helps build trust too. Let them know who you are. Don’t be afraid to talk about the films you watch and the television shows you like, because that helps give a sense of what your film sensibilities are and what you like, and that helps build trust too. So I mean maybe that’s a little esoteric, but I always think that is one of the biggest things besides your talent is that you build a trust with people.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Excellent answer. Did we want to do another clip?





Thorben Bieger:

Great. So, well, I guess, where do we go next? Maybe something completely bizarre and different. I worked on a very unusual show and as part of the fun of a good year in Nova Scotia, and the kind of mix of things that I enjoy working on, sometimes it’s very experimental. And a show that I worked on a couple of years ago was called Clay’s POV. It was a call itself the first ever, first person point of view series. I think it’s an interesting thing to look at because first it was very experimental. It’s people trying to come up in the world in the, in the size of budgets that we often work in here, it’s not possible to make anything that competes on the same level with shows like big cable dramas that everyone loves.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And so how do you do something different that doesn’t feel like a bad tone than something else? Well, this show is somebody who’s attempted at that. The concept is basically, it’s a travel blog type of series, but it’s fictional. It’s based loosely on a Japanese novel in which a husband is spying on his wife’s diary. But he’s pretty sure that she knows he’s doing it and the things he’s writing in it or she’s sending him messages through it. But then he constantly has to wonder if that’s the case or not. Maybe that’s the novel that it’s based on, and in this show there’s a Canadian hitchhiker who’s also a filmmaker, who’s traveling through Europe.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And the idea of this show is first of all, to make it through the eyes or through the camera of the main character. So you never see him, you only hear him and to use a very, very small crew and to use locations in Europe as sort of the production value, rather than trying to build big studios and big, you know or cool sets. They would take a very small crew and go on train to Amalfi Coast of Italy or to Pompei or Prague, and just kind of was very … There were scripts, but they often went off script. It was very documentary style of editing for a travel show, in which the travelin which the  beauty shots are just incidental to the background.

 

Thorben Bieger:

But I guess, editorially the main challenge of this show was how to try to make a show work without reverses, basically to tell a story through the eyes of the main character. Maybe we’ll take a look at the clip, and talk about how well that works or not after you’ve seen it. It’s number four Clay’s POV.

 

Anton:

Here, check it out.

 

Speaker 20:

650,000 for that. It’s ridiculous. I don’t understand.

 

Anton:

Yeah. Well, the boy, his father is a fat cat banker who stole millions from his shareholders. Money’s nothing to him.





Speaker 21:

And look who.

 

Speaker 20:

I know him. Isn’t it-

 

Anton:

Yeah, Pietro Pancetta, or he used to be. Now, he’s [inaudible 00:55:30] and he’s in the fine art business. I bumped into him in rehab in France. We became mates.

 

Speaker 21:

In rehab?

 

Speaker 20:

Didn’t you wish you were a fish?

 

Anton:

No.

 

Speaker 21:

Not so much.

 

Speaker 20:

You’re so beautiful. I think either other there’d be a fish.

 

Anton:

Yeah. I think you’re around the twist now.

 

Speaker 21:

Peter paid Anton to make the first bid.

 

Anton:

Yeah. He’ll get the ball rolling.

 

Speaker 20:

Is it allowed?

 

Anton:

Well, technically legally, no.



Speaker 21:

Then what if no one else bids and you win the auction?

 

Anton:

Well, then the painting doesn’t sell. Look, if some rich wanker wants to buy the art, he just buys it, okay? No one’s forcing him. I was just facilitating the mood, adding to the excitement which I’m doing as a one-off favor to Peter. It’s not like I’m going to make a career out of it or anything. He’s been showing me the ropes in the fine art business. It’s basically just an income tax from rich drunk guys, which gets me thinking.

 

Speaker 20:

Thinking how?

 

Anton:

Well, thinking that some of these rich drunk guys need to experience the fine art of sharing some of their good fortune with Anton Von Pinkel.

 

Speaker 20:

Yeah.

 

Anton:

Yeah. Meaning they buy some art from me.

 

Speaker 21:

Anton, everyone knows the art world’s, but there’s a difference between a genuine bullshitter and bullshit bullshitter. They’re going to smell you coming a mile away.

 

Anton:

Mate, that might be true, except that these drunk guys at the auctions, know fuck all about the art they’re buying, except for the name on them, which means all I need is something with the right signature on it.

 

Speaker 21:

And how are you going to come up with something with the right signature on it?

 

Anton:

Old Pinkel has a plan mate.

 

Amanda Mitro:

So that was fun. So the camera is a character in that?

 

Thorben Bieger:

The camera is, yeah. Right in the main title sequence, the character introduces himself and says, “You can hear me, but you can’t see me.” And sometimes the main characters habit of filmmaking was useful and was there by design, because it allowed sometimes his computer or his phone or his camera to be a device for which you would see things as well. So sometimes he lifts the camera right up to the screen. You see it, and you use reflections or what’s on the screen to add the missing element of the reverse shot.

 

Kim McTaggart:

That was well shot too. It looked really cool.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Well, and that’s another thing, one of the reasons why I chose that scene was because, it was always a challenge to come up with something. In this scene, it wasn’t planned. They found this location said, “Okay, we’ll stand around the aquarium,” and that way they could shoot through the glass and use that whole layer of fish, through which you could see the main character. It helps, at least I found it helped to get … When you’re cutting laterally from one character to another, without having ..without being able to go to the reverse, it’s finding ways to add density often helped.

 

Thorben Bieger:

There were times when they would try to do things in oner’s or try to do things with pens. And there were times when they would do things very experimentally, like let the camera roam around the room as if the person wasn’t interested in the conversation and was just looking at a corner of the ceiling. A lot of those things felt a little bit well, forced. It felt like he didn’t, it felt like naturally … It gives you that drunk feeling of being forced to look in another direction, when it’s not where your eye goes.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Whereas eventually after two seasons of the show, it was decided that it was better, to figure out ways to make cuts. For a lot of reasons, it was better to figure out ways to make cuts. And although it does take some adjusting, it starts eventually to feel  quite natural, in the same way that perhaps shaky camera watching different frame rates, watching 60 frames per second, at first it can be really off-putting or difficult to become accustomed to. But after a while, you just accept is as a part of the show and become accustomed to it and stop thinking about it.

 

Thorben Bieger:

It was a very interesting project to work on, because there were basically no rules at all. There was nothing that you couldn’t try. Often episodes were little bit parts didn’t work, or they ended up being late and you’d have to invent something. We had lots of footage, wherever they traveled they’d mount GoPros or cameras onto cars or motorcycles, to shoot time-lapses. So we have all kinds of generic, I guess, material. And sometimes you’d have to invent something through a fantasy or just sort of a poetic inner moment of watching clouds or whatever it might be.





Thorben Bieger:

There really was no limit to what you could attend, and sometimes in desperation to put things together. It’s a real contrast to conventional television but one that was quite fun to work on.

 

Amanda Mitro:

That’s very cool.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Hey, Thorben when I said … I had said that it felt like it should be panning because that’s the way his eyes-

 

Thorben Bieger:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

 

Kim McTaggart:

Did you ever think of adding blinks? Did you try that? It’s basically Walter Murch come to life, the blink of the eyes when you change your ideas and stuff, so he’d look at something else. I don’t know, it just occurred to me watching this stuff.

 

Thorben Bieger:

We did tamper with that a little bit, like creating sort of  an aperture closing on … I mean there was hope of a third season. Because another thing we really wanted to do was kind of a VR version of this show. That would be a little more going back into the territory of Warners, but it definitely a show that could lend itself to a VR experiment.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Kim, do you want to do another?

 

Kim McTaggart:

I’ll do a clip. This is a show, it’s called Seed, did two seasons of it, 2013, ’14 or something like that. Seed is about a gentleman, you see him on the thumbnail there, who was a sperm donor and all his sperm donor families are starting to … They found out who the dad was. So they’re all connected now. He and three other families are connected because he’s sperm dad. So that’s the setup.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And the cool thing about this show was it was the first time I had ever used ScriptSync on a comedy show, which is where it just shines. I had used it on a feature just a few months before I did here, a feature that was half oner so it was still fun to have ScriptSync but it wasntit didn’t utilize it to its fullest capacity. Whereas a comedy is just built. Script sync is just built for comedies where you’re line by lining everything just trying to find the funniest read on everything.



Kim McTaggart:

Script sync is just fabulous. So what we’re going to do is I’ll show you the clip and then I’m going to, because I’m a digital hoarder, I have all my projects and footage and everything from this seven-year-old show and my script. So we’ll just do a little screen share and I’ll just give you a quick little rundown of kind of how that’s set up.

 

Speaker 22:

Mild salsa, no, I can’t celebrate Father’s Day with this. Father’s Day is all about Zing.

 

Speaker 23:

Not going to happen.

 

Speaker 22:

Oh, hot salsa is happening.

 

Speaker 23:

Harry, Father’s Day is my time with Billy. It’s a tradition.

 

Speaker 22:

Yeah, that was before I came along. Now I can take over. You’re welcome.

 

Speaker 23:

I’m not losing this to our anonymous sperm donor. What part of Father’s Day is mine do you not understand?

 

Speaker 22:

The father part.

 

Speaker 24:

But Father’s Day is like Christmas to Michelle.

 

Speaker 22:

Fine. Then I can have Christmas.

 

Speaker 24:

But Christmas is my Halloween.

 

Speaker 22:

Okay. If you give me this, then you can have half of St Patrick’s Day and all of black history month.

 

Speaker 23:

No, I’m keeping Father’s Day. You can have Groundhog Day.

 

Speaker 24:

But Groundhog Day is my New Years.

 

Speaker 22:

What am I supposed to do for Father’s Day then?

 

Speaker 25:

This is the official agenda of our co Father’s Day this Sunday honored guests, Jonathan and Harry.

 

Speaker 22:

Well, at least someone wants to give me a Father’s Day. And I got us matching Father’s Day t-shirts

 

Speaker 23:

I’m with my princess.

 

Speaker 24:

Aw, my two gay dads.

 

Speaker 22:

It’ll work better with Anna between us.

 

Speaker 23:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

 

Speaker 24:

I’m not wearing this.

 

Speaker 23:

But it’s such a good example of proper apostrophe usage. Fine, you don’t have to join us.



Speaker 24:

It’s Father’s Day.

 

Speaker 23:

It’s not Daughter’s Day.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Oh, that’s good.

 

Kim McTaggart:

So yeah, this was the first time I had ever used ScriptSync, which means I did not use any bins at all, I strictly used my script. It’s a great thing to use, it just means you have to have an assistant who will lay all this up for you. But the assistant I had on this show got so good at it. He was so fast, it was done in no time. And the time he took to do it, I would take that time tenfold I felt.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Where it really paid off is when I had directors and producers in the room and I could so easily go to every take, every line and do, for instance Father’s Day is like Christmas to Michelle, there it is, I could just go across and we could listen to every take. Because on the show, well, any show, I’ll do a lot of audio switching too. So I’ll keep the picture the same and I’ll swap out the audio so we just listen through every take.

 

Kim McTaggart:

So yeah, so now I rarely work without this. Even on a low budget show, if I don’t have an assistant I will take the time and do it myself because I really feel like it pays off in the end.

 

Amanda Mitro:

That’s really cool. And how how long has ScriptSync been an-

 

Kim McTaggart:

Been an Avid? It’s been an Avid since I can remember, for like 15 years. It had been in there even before it had voice recognition, you could still ScriptSync but you would have to kind of manually put where things are or it would kind a guess. The beginning is here, the end is here so halfway through must be there, and it would guess where things were, interpolate, if you will.

 

Kim McTaggart:

But now it has a voice recognition and it just literally recognizes the voices and creates the nodes of where everything is. So it doesn’t work on all shows. If you’re on a location with really noisy background, the voice recognition is tough to deal with, but the assistant can still manually do nodes so you can still use it. But on a show like this where it’s in studio with perfectly clean sound it works impeccably.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And it’s also great for your documentary editors out there. I shouldn’t say I just started using it. I used it way back in documentary. Whenever you have a transcript, this is brilliant for transcripts. If you have an hour and a half interview, you just lay that in there and you can just go to any word in your interview easily. So that’s where I really first started using it.

 

Kim McTaggart:

So I’ve been using it a lot longer than 2014, but that’s when I started using it pretty much exclusively now on dramatic shows too. Unless the assistant gets all grouchy and doesn’t want to do it and says they don’t have time and all that stuff. But really once you get used to doing it, it goes pretty quickly.

 

Amanda Mitro:

I guess that’s another tip for aspiring assistants, don’t be grouchy.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Don’t be grouchy and learn ScriptSync. Oh, somebody is asking how you cut with ScriptSync. Just like multicam. Oh, I’m sorry, I should have had that up there. I don’t cut it like a multicam show in the multicam mode. If you know Avid, it has a multicam mode. There’s no real advantage to that unless you have more than four cameras. No, I’ll just cut regularly.

 

Kim McTaggart:

But then even when the shot is sitting on your timeline, you can flip through and you can easily change it. And then whenever I have my shots in the source monitor, I usually have both shots up. It always surprises me how many people don’t use ScriptSync, like shows that do have lots of assistants and the ability to use it don’t use it.

 

Thorben Bieger:

[inaudible 01:07:17]. It’s learning a new thing.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And the other, just because we’re talking a little geeking out now, another feature a lot of people I find don’t use which I use all the time is the blue button. Do you use the blue button all the time, Thorben?

 

Thorben Bieger:

No.

 

Kim McTaggart:

No. See, I use it all the time, the replace button. If Im trying out.. if I actually want to cut in a line, it’s easy just to play out through all five takes or whatever, but if you want to actually test it in your show, I’ll just land on a word in the middle of the take and then find that same word and then just blue button it in. It may not be exactly where it needs to be, but it’s quick and dirty and there’s no marking in and out and all that stuff, just blue button and boom it’s in.

 

Kim McTaggart:

So I use blue button all the time and it always astounds me that not everybody does. Although I know there’s a million different ways to do everything, and somebody probably has a much better way than the blue button.





Amanda Mitro:

Here’s a question for you guys, how does the camera choice affect your edit, whether it’s a, you know Red cam or GoPros or iPhone footage or all of that fun stuff, how do you guys like working with those?

 

Kim McTaggart:

It doesn’t matter. The only thing it affects is if it’s 4K you can punch in if you’re delivering. Well, now everybody wants 4K, so you can’t even punch in anymore. But it used to be if everything was in HD and they were shooting 4K, you could reframe so easily. And Thorben got into that more than I did. Thorben would reframe everything.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Well, it was a bit of a craze. For me it may affect more of the decision of what to work with. By far I work with Avid most of the time but there are times when I’ll work with other Final Cut 10 [inaudible 01:08:53] or something like that. And if it’s a show, for example, that last one that we looked at, Clay’s POV, that was a show that was full of GoPros and DSLRs, all kinds of different cameras.

 

Thorben Bieger:

There were probably five or six or more different formats. And all it was shot pretty haphazardly. The sound was on the camera, sometimes sound was on a separate system. And I found actually for that project it was quite useful to work in final cut because of the ability to just dump everything in. It didn’t even take a lot of transcoding on a fairly standard iMac to be able to play 4K in real time next to Canon 5D footage.

 

Thorben Bieger:

It really was useful for that kind of jumble of different formats. So, again, the camera choice might not affect. It would only affect editing, for me, in terms of perhaps driving the choice towards a different platform.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And I’m pretty much exclusively Avid unless there’s a real raging reason. Like on the first year Call Me Fitz, I don’t know, Avid, wasn’t playing nice with the red camera. We used Final Cut Pro. Otherwise, no, I’ll stick with Avid.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Any recent trends in editing that you’re noticing like stylistically that you like or don’t like?

 

Thorben Bieger:

Well, there’s one that I’ve been noticing more and more. The first few times I loved it and now I haven’t had the chance to imitate it yet myself, but it seems like everyone else is, which is in particularly exciting moments to cut so hard on the last word of the scene that you actually cut off part of the word. I’ve seen it in comedies and in really serious movies.




Thorben Bieger:

It’s usually, even in a serious drama usually has a somewhat comical effect. And the first few times I saw it I thought it was really cool. It’s getting less cool with every video.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I still love it every time I watch a Better Call Saul, which is a brilliant show. I love the big slow master shot shows like that. But the opening theme music, they cut it off at the end and every time I just go, “Oh, I love that.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Yeah, and I’ve noticed it in Handmaid’s Tale.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Oh yeah. Yeah.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And just the other night I saw it in Killing Eve. It’s cool but everyone’s doing it now.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Yeah, Brooklyn Nine-Nine does it too.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I still love a good jump cut. Nothing I’ve done really we’ve gotten really into jump cutting. I remember when Call Me Fitz there was like a rule do not jump cut. It had to be very classical kind of stuff or you could jump cut to compress time but not a totally visual jump cut. I don’t know, I just love a really well done jump cut. Probably it excites me because I rarely get to do them in shows. They just don’t have that style.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I just did a feature and it was full of oners and stuff and I’m like, “Well, we’re going to have to incorporate jump cuts into the show.” And they’re just, “I don’t know.” I just love them.

 

Amanda Mitro:

And overall, for both of you, what is the most fun you have on the job? What’s the best part of being an editor? What just makes you want to go, “Yes, this is why I became an editor?



Thorben Bieger:

[inaudible 01:12:20]. Temp ADR



Kim McTaggart:

Yeah, its funny, we were talking about remote editing versus all being together, and that’s part of it. We did lose some of the fun. It’s really fun to be together in one place and work. And the last time we did do it it was on Call Me Fitz, where they wanted us to make sure we had 10 PDR for everything. And we would just fill in crowd scenes and we’d have these loop group nights.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And Sarah who’s on the call was in on that. We had so much fun. I just love doing that stuff. And Thorben and I still do it but we have to email back and forth. It’s still tons of fun, yeah. He jokes when he says it, but it is. It’s tons of fun.

 

Thorben Bieger:

For me lately one of my favorite parts has been the very, very late stage of editing. Sometimes when you’re close to the first few rounds of notes feel really constructive and you’ve put together a piece and made something, you’ve had your chance as the editor to affect what’s going to happen when you start working with the directors and producers and writers to make changes.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Then it starts going to the studio or to the network and you’re starting to get note fatigue and you feel like some of the notes that you’re seeing are things you may have already gone through, or there may be completely new. Still those all really become sometimes a little trying to get through the later stages of notes. But in my experience they still tend to be really helpful or things you shouldn’t overlook.

 

Thorben Bieger:

But then sometimes very near the end, new ideas come up late in the game. But I find that exciting sometimes when you dont when  late in the creative process you’re still open to discovering something. And often I find it involves taking something out of the show, taking a line out or taking even a couple of lines out that actually make a scene better by dictating too clearly what someone is thinking or by letting facial expressions say something rather than dialogue.

 

Thorben Bieger:

When that’s happening later in the process I feel like you’re making changes that can have a gigantic effect on the piece and not compromising until the last minute. You’re still massaging or making changes at the very late stage. I find that quite fun to do.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Yeah, I’ll agree with that too. And you’re probably speaking to a showrunner we just worked with who would … He’d fly in to picture lock. You’re pretty much done, it would go onto the network and he’d fly into picture lock and he’d come in and say, “Hey, what would happen if we took that scene out and maybe put it in the next episode,” or some really big, little but big thing like that. And you’re like, “Fuck.” Sorry.



Kim McTaggart:

And you do it and you go, “Wow. Well, yeah. Yeah. Okay. That’s great.” But I don’t know why he’d save those golden things for the bitter end. But yeah yeah you’re doing those all the way along at the end. And as Thorben says, usually it’s taking out. That’s what I find really fun too, is when you’re at the last stage and you’re going through it, and Thorben probably does the same thing, you’re looking for every line to have meaning or need to be there. And if it doesn’t, take it out.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And I do that right to the end, and I find that process one of the most fun processes. And another one I worked with, oh my gosh, Rick Mercer, I’m going to tell tales, on Made in Canada, would come in and he’d always preface his ideas with, “I know you’re going to get mad. I know this is just crazy, but just, please, please indulge me. It’s really stupid.” And I’d say probably at least half the time they were, and I crankily do it and we’d go, “Okay, thanks,” and go back.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And the other half they were freaking brilliant ideas, because all of them were like just totally out there, nothing I would have thought of. And he’d come in and do that and half the time we’d just go back and the other half it’s like, “Holy shit, that’s brilliant.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Sometimes it does make you cranky because you feel like you’re so close and on a series perhaps you’re tired or there’s a lot of pressure to get things done. But I find more and more easy not to feel that crankiness at all, but to to think, okay, this is where we’re actually going to add you know 10% or we’re actually going to lift the show quite a bit with a few last changes.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And if someone has the idea and brings it up at that point, first of all, it’s probably a showrunner or a producer and you’re going to listen anyway, but it’s probably because they know the material really well and because they’re thinking of the series, of the whole season and the series on a bigger scale, and they also created these characters and they’re getting ideas, they’re inspired.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And maybe it’s something that’s been percolating in the back of their mind or they just thought of it right now, but either way, when those things come up, I think it’s really important to listen to them and to be optimistic about them.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And the other fun part for me, and it still happens is I’ll cut a scene and I’ll just, I don’t know, something happens. It’s just like magic and my heart starts to beat fast and I’m just so excited by the scene. Its jJust so excited. It doesn’t happen all that often. I remember once it happened on Call Me Fitz and I was so freaking excited, I cut this. It was Josh walking through the jail.

 

Kim McTaggart:

It was a big follow behind why he was in jail. And I cut it to this particular song that I thought was frigging brilliant. So I immediately export and send it off to the showrunner, and I know our showrunner then, Sherry, no matter what she’s doing, if you sent her something she would sit and watch it. And sure enough, 15 minutes later … I was so excited, “You got to see this, Sherry.

 

Kim McTaggart:

15 minutes later sure enough comes back and she’s like, “Nah. Nah.” And I was crushed. So crushed that I would not change it. It took me at least two times before I would finally change that music because I was so certain it was brilliant. But anyway, still those moments that make your heart beat fast. They’re not always nay moments, sometimes they’re really great, but I love when I feel that.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Music is funny like that because it is so subjective, and you may.. one person may just not feel what you’re feeling with the music. But another thing that I really enjoy is, and it happens on every show somewhere along the way that there’s just a moment that gets you every time. And it might be, whatever, it might be something that makes you teary or makes me laugh.

 

Thorben Bieger:

There’s usually something along the way that has the same effect on you every time you watch it. And I’m quoting someone here who said that, as the editor its kind your job to fall in love with the show, whether you like the show or not or whether it’s your kind of show. It might not be the thing that you watch on your own free time, but it’s your job to fall in love with the material, to make itjust to make it as good as it can be and to fully invest yourself in that show.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And usually what happens to me is that when you go into it with that approach you start to like the characters and you start to care more about it. And when the actor has a really good scene you feel it much more, and I think it just contributes in general to one’s whole approach to the rest of the show when you say this is going to be good as good as it can get.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I mouth the words. I get so invested in them when I watch those scenes you were talking about, I’ll see my lips moving and I’m saying their words because I’m so excited for them. It’s funny. Somebody asked me once, working on the show so long, do you get so sick of them like you never want to see them again and you’re glad they’re out the door?

 

Kim McTaggart:

And I can honestly say no. At the end of every show I’m done, I’m still usually madly in love with it. I mean I might be a little tired and be glad to be moving on to the next one, but no, I fall in love with them all even if I didn’t think I would or wasn’t in the beginning. By the time I’m done I know them all so deeply and have such a vested interest in them and I always love it.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And you notice it when you watch it five years later or whatever, because you spend so much time preoccupied with things that you see as problems or things that you want to fix that the parts that are good, the parts that don’t need that tension are easy to just … You take them for granted. They no longer affect you. For me, the closer I come to the end, the more I need feedback and the more I need to figure out ways to reset my own perception of it or to rely on other people’s feedback to work on it.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And it becomes a fairly microscopic process. And it does take some time to see it with fresh eyes, sometimes years. And there is a feeling. For me sometimes when I look at something that I worked on a long time ago, I often feel much better about it than I did, right at the end. But then suddenly I also remember the sandwich I ate that day. It’s all bundled together.

 

Thorben Bieger:

I remember I had a, whatever, a meatloaf sandwich from the Italian market that they were working on that scene and the memories are … I don’t think those associations ever completely go away. You never get to see it for the first time again, I guess.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Yeah.

 

Amanda Mitro:

All right, it looks like we have time for one more question. Didier Kennel has one, what will the editing and industry be like five years from now? What would you prepare for now to be viable then?

 

Kim McTaggart:

You know what, I don’t think there’s anything we can do to prepare for five years from now for one thing. I think we can just roll with the punches and see where we land five years from now. But this whole new remote editing is going to be something we all have to get used to and learn. And I think that technology is really going to build, as Thorben says, these programs to help us do that.

 

Kim McTaggart:

They’re just going to take over and we’re all going to be working this way. But that’s still just rolling with the punches as they come.

 

Thorben Bieger:

I think the editing industry five years from now will be … It’s more of a question of what production looks like. But I do wonder the more remote editing becomes, the harder it will be to make contacts, and that’s a really important part, especially when you’re trying to establish yourself. The more producers retire that we’ve worked with in the past, the harder and the less exchange there is with people.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And together with remote technology I think it could make it harder to meet people that want decide they like something about you and they want to work with you. You’re often told there’s an interview for a job on a series or on a feature, but again, that also often comes after some kind of initial contact through a recommendation or meeting that you had somewhere.

 

Thorben Bieger:

So I guess what I would try to prepare for in five years is somehow still being maybe networking. And networking not so … Well, I don’t know, maybe it’s all social, maybe it’s all social networking that you do, or maybe what sets you apart is some way of contacting people or making an impression on people in person. But yeah, I think that might be part of the picture in five years.

 

Amanda Mitro:

All right. Well, thank you everybody for coming and talking editing with us, and thank you, Kimberly and Thorben, you guys-

 

Kim McTaggart:

Thanks Amanda.

 

Amanda Mitro:

… are awesome.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Thank you to the CCE for hosting this event.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Great. Thanks everyone. And if you have any burning questions that you think of later on tonight, which I understand probably you may not have them, feel free to send an email or something.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And a shout out to James who said there should be temp ADR awards, because Thorben would be up for many of them. So that’s a billion idea. He says, hint, CCE, they should think about that. All right. Thanks everyone.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Bye everyone. Thank you. Goodnight.

Sarah Taylor:

Thanks for joining us today, and a big thank you goes to our panelists and moderator. Special thanks goes to Jane MacRae and Alison Dowler. This episode was edited by Dennis Leyton. The main title sound design was created by Jane Tattersall. Additional ADR recording by Andrea Rusch. Original music provided by Chad Blain. This episode was mixed and mastered by Tony Bao. The CCE has been supporting Indspire – an organization that provides funding and scholarships to 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.

 

[Outtro]

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

Nagham Osman

Hosted and Produced by

Sarah Taylor

Monté par

Dennis Leyton

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

Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 037: Altered Carbon Q&A

Episode 037: Altered Carbon Q&A

This episode is sponsored by Jaxx a Creative House and Annex Pro/ Avid.

Geoff Ashenhurst, CCE, Erin Deck, CCE, Stephen Philipson CCE, et Jay Prychidny CCE discuss the creative and technical challenges of putting together the second season of one of the biggest VFX-based series Netflix has ever made.

This panel was moderated by Sarah Taylor.

À écouter ici !

JAXX Creative Sponsor Episode of The Editors Cut
Annex Pro AVID Logo Sponsor

The Editor’s Cut – Episode 037 – Altered Carbon (2020 Master Series)

Sarah Taylor:

This episode was generously sponsored by Jackson creative house, Annex Pro, and Avid.

 

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 as 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:

Before we get to today’s episode, I have a message from the Whistler Film Festival from December 1st to 20th, WFF would deliver its 20th anniversary edition, virtually to a national audience with over 100 films, including 30 features and seven short programs, all taking place over 20 days with film viewing access available until December 31st. WFF’s content summit welcomes establish industry leaders and content creators to our virtual mountain home to discover network and explore the ideas and actions shaping our new reality. From the global pandemic to calls for social change, along with policy changes in the Canadian media landscape, 2020 is a transformative year for the screen-based industry. Here’s your chance to keep your finger on the pulse and get a look at what the future holds. This episode was our first online master series event that took place on April 21st, 2020. It’s a panel discussion and Q&A with the editors of the Netflix hit series Altered Carbon. Geoff Ashenhurst CCE, Erin Deck CCE, Stephen Philipson CCE, and Jay Prychidny, CCE discuss the creative and technical challenges of putting together the second season of one of the biggest visual effects based series Netflix has ever made. This panel was moderated by me.

[show open] Sarah Taylor:

Welcome everybody to the first master series, zoom Q&A, which is Ultra Carbon, which is very exciting.

 

Erin Deck:

Yay.

 

Sarah Taylor:

And thank you all the people joining from around Canada and maybe even around the world, which is very exciting. So my first thing is I want each of you to introduce yourself, let us know kind of a little bit about your career, how you got onto the show and then what episodes you worked on. Let’s start with Jay because he’s in my top corner, top left corner right now.

 

Jay Prychidny:

So, I mean, I just always started as an editor, just out of school. I just started the editing right away. I started in kind of independent, low budget stuff, and that went up to network television and that went up to like on staff at a network. And then that went up to like reality and then went up to scripted.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

What do you mean when you say on-staff at a network?

 

Jay Prychidny:

I was cutting SexTV at CityTV.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

At city, right? Yeah.

 

Jay Prychidny:

It was awesome. [crosstalk 00:03:12] I mean, I don’t think they do shows like that anymore. They don’t like produce things that’ll shows that are that great, like in house.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

 

Jay Prychidny:

But back in the day they did and at CityTV they did so and yeah, for Altered Carbon, they kind of just talked to every editor who had a certain level of credit. Which means credits that are known to American … the Netflix of the American distributor. So they kind of talked to everyone who had credits like that and they hired me for whatever their reasons were. [crosstalk 00:03:50].

 

Sarah Taylor:

And which episodes did you cut for season two?

 

Jay Prychidny:

So I cut episode four and seven.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Erin….

 

Erin Deck:

Hi. I was aan assistant editor for 13 years in Toronto, which was amazing because I got to work with tons and tons of amazing editors. And basically I’m all just luck. I had a friend who got me a job on an awesome show called Ghostly Encounters and that just kind of snowballed and got an agent and went from like Killjoys to stuff like that into, Into The Badlands. And then again, like Jay, I don’t know why they decided to pick me, but I got, I got the interview and then the second interview, and I guess they liked my smile.

 

Sarah Taylor:

I’m sure there was more than that. And which episodes did you edit?

 

Erin Deck:

I cut two and five.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Hey, Steve.

 

Stephen Philipson:

I guess I started sort of from an indie film background, I did indie features and shorts for many years and then started to get excited about series television. And many years ago, I had the very good fortune of doing a show called Hannibal, which kind of got me into one hour series TV, which is where I’ve been for the past eight or nine years. After Hannibal, I, the filmmakers went to LA to do a show called American Gods, which I did a few years ago. And after that, I was sort of unsure whether to be in LA or Toronto.

My family’s here and we weren’t quite ready to make the full move, but I got on a show called 10 days in the Valley, which my agent, I think pitched me for actually, because I could work in LA and Toronto. So I started in LA and moved to Toronto.

 

Stephen Philipson:

And on that show, I was lucky enough to work with somebody called Dieter Ismagil, who I think we’ll probably end up talking about quite a bit. He’s our post producer on the show ..

 

Jay Prychidny:

At Skydance.

 

Stephen Philipson:

That’s right. From a practical standpoint, it was good that I could work in both markets, but we also got along and he’s, he’s very, he’s a good guy. He takes good care of the people who work for him. And so we stayed in touch over the years and, and I got a call from him for the show, well actually almost a year before it started, He asked me if I was available in like February 4th, 2019, and you know how these shows always get pushed or whatever. So I’m like, okay, whatever. But I mean, we actually started on February 4th.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Wow.

 

Jay Prychidny:

It’s smart because he’d be like, are you available? And I’d be like, well,

 

Sarah Taylor: Yeah.

Jay Prychidny:

 

like a year from now. Yeah.

 

Sarah Taylor:

And you did episode one and episode…

 

Stephen Philipson:

Six.

 

Sarah Taylor:

And then Geoff, last but not least.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

All right, so I started out doing commercials and I guess, I would sit on commercials for like a year, year and a half. And then I got lucky because two of the editors left on the same day. Hey, you get a room now you’re an editor now. So I mean, I’d already done it. I’d done a bunch of smaller stuff up to that point. So I had a reel and stuff. So I came out doing commercials and music videos, but it was great because we had a great facility and I was able to cut shorts on the side basically like for five years or something, the probably longer actually I was kind of always doing the short, like evenings, weekends, and then commercials are short turnarounds. So sometimes I’d have a week between commercials or two weeks or whatever. And I just make the most of that time during shorts and then eventually some of those shorts turned out okay. And that led to a bad first independent movie. And then that led to a good first independent movie or I guess second, I don’t, I almost forgot about the first one now, but yeah. So then I didn’t need film for several years and still kind of like dabbling in commercials, which I still do from time to time. And then I got this show season two and three of Penny Dreadful. It was the Showtime series that take five in Toronto. And that was an amazing experience. And I think that was probably the biggest thing that kind of got me on their radar for this. And then I had a couple of interviews and I did up episode three and eight.

 

Sarah Taylor:

And then you also stayed on and did some other stuff at the end, right?

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Yeah. They, they … just because there’s so much visual facts in the show. And I think so… Yeah, so they wanted an editor to stay on because as the shots would come in and they’d get further along in their development, it’d be, well, actually it doesn’t really work with this shot that comes after anymore. And so just doing kind of smaller adjustments for the most part. But then there was also a few things where Alison, the showrunner, having like sat with the episode, as creative people like her do, like every time they watch it, they have some new idea. So they had me around for that too.

 

Erin Deck:

So how long did you stay on afterwards?

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Till like November… Mid-November I guess. [crosstalk 00:08:54] Because actually it would have been longer. It would have been like a week or two longer, but I had a trip booked and I was like…

 

Jay Prychidny:

Geez, I did whole other series. [crosstalk 00:00:09:02]

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

That’s true.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Well, speaking of like schedule and stuff like that, kind of, what was your post like post team? There’s the four of you are the main editors. And did you each have assistants? Kind of let me know that stuff. And then the schedule of like, how long did you have for each episode? What were your, the length of time that you had with your directors, with the producers, the showrunners, that kind of thing?

 

Erin Deck:

Well, I think for the director’s cut normally it’s four days, but because it was all done remote, I think the directors got six days.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

I think I heard somewhere along the line, that’s like a DGA thing. If it’s remote,

 

Erin Deck:

Oh, okay.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

They get more time.

 

Sarah Taylor:

And maybe explain quickly, why were you all are cutting remote? And what was the setup there?

 

Jay Prychidny:

Well, the whole show was shot in Vancouver and season one was posted in a little bit in Vancouver and in LA. And for this season to save more money, I guess their main reason they did all of the post in Canada, and they decided that Toronto had a talent pool that they liked. So out of Canada, they chose to come to Toronto. So all the shooting was in Vancouver, all the executives were in LA and we were in Toronto. So, hardly anyone ever came to Toronto, it was really just the post team, which was 15 of us or have many there were. And yeah, so everything was done remote.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Who was the post team? What was it comprised of?

 

Stephen Philipson:

We each had our own assistant and I mean, our assistants were all busy, full time, cause there’s a lot going on. We had a VFX editor, the VFX editor had their own assistant. We had our post producer, Laurie, and then she had a team of two–

 

Erin Deck:

Katie and Mandy, yeah.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Supervisors.

 

Stephen Philipson:

Then we had our post PA. Yeah. In terms of picture post yes.

 

Sarah Taylor:

And you all work together out of Deluxe?

 

Erin Deck:

Yeah. We had all one little area all together.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Now do each of you work differently with your assistants? Like is there, if you want to walk through how they help you kind of, because I’m sure every editor is a different.

 

Erin Deck:

I to keep mine under the table.

 

Sarah Taylor:

They rub your feet.

 

Erin Deck:

Yeah, that doesn’t sound good. [crosstalk 00:11:17]

 

Stephen Philipson:

I tried to use my assistant for creative reasons anyways. No, for me, it was more, I think to take some of the sort of temp sound work off my plate and the person that I brought up, I’d like to bring on people who can make a creative contribution and I try to give them scenes to cut, but just the volume of, and the speed of turnover and everything. Even though we were on the show for a long time, I really didn’t get a chance to give a lot of creative work to my assistant, unfortunately, but the sound, I mean, the sound was really her realm.

 

Erin Deck:

And VFX. They handled a lot of the go-between. I tried to give, I had Shelly and she was phenomenal. And one time there was like in episode two there’s this gunfight and there’s like slow-mo and stuff. And the director wanted to see all these variations, of have it all 24, have it all 48, have it all like at all these different speeds. And so I basically was busy cutting other things. And I just gave that to Shelly and I said, use all these shots and this is like the ins and the outs that I want but if you need to adjust that, please do. But so yeah, she did a fantastic job.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

And the holo-ads, right?

 

Erin Deck:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. She was fantastic at those,

 

Jay Prychidny:

I started as an editor with me being my own assistant not having an assistant. So it really took me a long time. And also in Canadian television, a lot of the time you’ll have one assistant for like multiple editors or something. So I was just kind of used to the idea of doing everything myself. So it’s kind of been a process over the past few years discovering, Oh, there are things that I can like work with an assistant on. So for this series, my assistant was Graham Tucker and he, so he ended up doing probably all of the sound. Maybe there was like one scene or something that was like, Oh, take this one. But he did the sound for all the episodes, and usually I have a lot of notes on the sound too and like really specific stuff. So, but it worked out really well. And the, in my episode was the only one where we didn’t have a sound house working on my episode. But I thought it sounded just as good.

 

Jay Prychidny:

You know, you can hire a post sound house for tons of money or you can hire Graham Tucker.

 

Stephen Philipson:

I’ll do a shout out to my assistant, Mary Juric as well, too. One thing she was great for was she did a lot of the VFX work. I mean, there are just maybe even, I don’t know if there was more on episode one just cause it was sort of a, sort of a pilot in a way, but she really helped out Dale, our VFX editor quite a bit. Like she would do temp keys and stuff like that. So it was great to have that as well. Cause there was quite a huge volume of effects, especially on the first episode I did.

 

Stephen Philipson:

I heard that the Guillermo Del Toro calls Mary, Mrs. X after Mr. X. Cause she’s so good at doing temp VFX. [crosstalk 00:14:27].

 

Stephen Philipson:

Oh really? [crosstalk 00:14:29] Let’s say it’s true.

 

Sarah Taylor:

And how about you, Geoff?

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

I had Tom Lounsbury who was great. Sort of similar to all you guys like, cause I come from independent film, I’m used to doing a lot of stuff myself, but specifically the fight stuff. Cause Tom did I think one season of Into the Badlands.

 

Erin Deck:

Yeah. Tom did one. Shelly did two.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Yeah. And I remember like first fight sequence in two or three or I needed the first pass on it. I was like, all right I could not have done as good a job with this. Like he was doing stuff, I guess just from that experience, I was like, you just added a lot in my friend. Good job. And I did, I didn’t– like Steve too. Like I love trying to give scenes and stuff, but with the pace of it, it was tough. But there was a few little things that I remember a couple of times I was like, ah, I’m finding this part tricky. Like, can you see if I’m missing something? And then he kind of figured it out. And I was like, all right.

 

Erin Deck:

I did that once with Shelley. I couldn’t, I couldn’t crack a scene. I just had such a hard time with it. And I was spending too much time and I knew I was going down a rabbit hole. So I, I just gave it to Shelly because she’s, she’s an editor on the side or for real,

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

CCE-nominated editor…

 

Erin Deck:

Winner!

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Winner. Pardon me.

 

Erin Deck:

Winner. Yes. I just needed to see the scene from someone else’s perspective. Cause I just couldn’t make it happen. And it was amazing. Cause I, I saw her take an approach at the scene that I think I just wouldn’t have done and it was great. And it helped me kind of then build from that moment. So yeah, she’s, she’s fantastic.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Geoff touched on fights and fight scenes and clearly the show is very fight heavy. So I want to dive into your guys’ process on how you tackle fight scenes and what you ran into, what worked, what didn’t work, what your challenges were. Maybe we’ll go with Steve. Cause he did episode one and there was a big, it was a couple of big fights.

 

Stephen Philipson:

It’s one of the biggest scenes I’ve ever done. We had a fight scene that had, I think in the end it had 120 setups.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Wow.

 

Stephen Philipson:

The slate went through the alphabet twice and two cameras on every set up. And really, I don’t, I mean the challenge on that was really just the volume of material. I mean, I had a good sense of how the fight

 

was supposed to go together from the script. It was quite well planned and they did previous sequences with the stunt people that they sent to us to give us sort of sense of what they were thinking. Although the stunts did change a little bit on set. In that particular… I mean, for me at first, it’s always just a logistical challenge, figuring out how to process all that footage. I mean, some of it, they sort of would do like a 30-second chunk of the action and just shoot that from a bunch of angles.

 

Stephen Philipson:

And then other parts there do specific shots just for, for special things like something getting hit by a bullet on a table or something. So it was really just breaking it down into pieces and then just kind of building it piece by piece and figuring out which section went where. For me it’s, I think it’s sort of a, just a technical challenge laying it out at first, when you have that much footage, it’s just almost a logistical challenge. And then the creative fun for me comes after that first kind of pass where you get everything in place and then you sort of see what you got and then everything fits and then you can play with things a bit. I mean, it’s really quite a well covered fight considering how much Well, I guess, well

covered, obviously there’s a lot of footage, but I mean, all pieces were there, which is very exciting because it’s not always like that.

 

Stephen Philipson:

I think I was missing one reverse that I really needed that we had to cheat in the end. And it was a lot of fun to put together and I can’t remember how long it was probably one or two minutes, but when you got to fight that long it’s like a story. And so, I mean, you have to figure out what is the story of the fight and it’s got pacing and you sort of track the characters’ emotions through the feet. So it’s fun from that standpoint because there’s just so much going on narrative wise and the fight, and it was a good chance to be expressive and to use kind of pace and tone to kind of give a shape to the fight. Yeah. It was a lot of fun. And then the, the fight in the opening scene was quite extensive as well. And same thing. It’s just sort of figuring out the storytelling through the fight. Once you’ve gotten over the hump of just figuring out how to put everything together.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. And Erin you kind of already touched on there’s lots of different speed changes and the director wanting to see all the different options. So how did that in the end shape into the scene, the fight scenes that you cut?

 

Erin Deck:

I think for me, I liked fight scenes a lot, especially if the stunt team and the director work really well together, the stunt team we had was really great. And normally they’ll just do these tiny little chunks for like the fight and it’s a building block. And so it’s for me, I find fight scenes almost easy to put together. Cause they’ve, if they’ve done them right, they laid them out for you. They will shoot them all in slow motion so that you can adapt them. I usually, my first pass has way too much slow-mo in it. I make it way too. Like, bah bah bah The whole thing. And then I have to, I have to be like this isn’t artsy fighting. This is like for Altered Carbon. So you start to like pull back and you try and figure out what the, what the key elements are that need to be slow-mo because as soon as you put something in slow-mo everyone’s like laser focused into like, why is that in slow motion? So it either has to be like a good kick or a good fly in the air. Or like with that first scene, like the gun being thrown, it’s just playing, I think for me and just kind of feeling like when I, I try not to show my hand too much, I think, as an editor in a fight scene, because the more you try and slow things down, then you’re kind of showing yourself, you’re

 

starting to be like, look at what I’m doing. So I think it’s a balance of trying to make it fun and entertaining and creative, but also cool.

 

Jay Prychidny:

I think this is you, Erin, when you were doing your first fight scene a long time ago, whenever that was, did ask Michelle Conroy for advice?

 

Erin Deck:

When I was cutting Kill Joys. Yeah.

 

Jay Prychidny:

I remember she said, this stuck in my head for some reason. And I was doing a fight scene today and it was still in my head, but in my memory, which I may have made up, you asked her, how do you approach a fight scene? And she said “one punch at a time.”

 

Erin Deck:

That sounds like her.

 

Jay Prychidny:

I don’t know why that stuck in my head so much, but it’s like one punch at a time and you just take it punch by punch or whatever move or whatever, move and make that as cool as you can.

 

Erin Deck:

On punch at a time but it is kind of true, right. Because you’re just like, you just start from this pop and just work your way through it. Yeah. No, she’s great.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Geoff, you had the big execution.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Yeah, sequence. Yeah.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Was there anything in there that you ran into that was challenging or changed or I don’t know. Your process for that?

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Yeah. I’m trying to remember when I do have the schedule right here, actually, I’m trying to remember how long they shot it for. It was like, at least a week they shot at for, but it was probably longer because I remember that it was like, okay, so they’re going to be shooting it on this set for like multiple days. So I should send MJ the director, like a work in progress cause they’ll have a chance to pick up anything that she might think they’re missing or isn’t happy with.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

 

So I remember I worked pretty furiously to like bang it together and Tom did a great job cause I was like, I couldn’t send it to her without having a sound pass done because I find like the believability of a lot of these strikes in a fight, you don’t buy them. But it’s amazing how once you have the right sound effect in how suddenly your brain will believe it. So yeah, so we sent it to her and I remember she called me, I hadn’t spoken to her at this point. We’d just been emailing prior to that. And she was like, so we sort of like small talk for like a minute or two and she’s like, so let me ask you this, have you done much action before?

 

Sarah Taylor:

Oh no.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

All right, cool.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Oh no.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Then I was like, I just, then I just assured her. No, I was just throwing in this together so you can see like it live, I wouldn’t put this on TV [00:23:05]. She was like okay, okay, great, great, great. But then with the big change after that was that when you watch a sequence, there’s these sort of like kind of stylized, like hazy point of view shots. And I think she did a really like, literally were like Vaseline on the lens, like really old school. Then they also used lens baby a bit too, just because Kovacs is drugged. So they’re just trying to get in his, literally in his point of view, how he’s seeing these characters from his past and like the believability of it. And the more I kind of got into that footage, I was like, okay, this is cool. Like this, this could make, should make the fight kind of stand out from being just another fight sequence, which I think is partially what she was responding to the first time as well, that it was pretty kind of run of the mill fight stuff.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Cause she’d done, there’s a show called Strike Back. It was on Cinemax for, I don’t even know, like six or seven seasons, like quite a long time. They shoot the set in Africa and she directed like a hundred episodes or something. So she’s really good at doing action and like covering everything off quickly and very experienced in it too. But then once I showed her like the next pass with all that point of view stuff cut in, basically when she’d shot everything, then she was like, Oh my God, it’s so fantastic. And she was, I didn’t, I found out later she was showing it to people on the set because remember I was working with Alison she’s, like in the old cut, there was this one shot. I was like, old cut. [crosstalk 00:24:23]

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

I found out she was showing people on set. That was a, sort of a bit of a unique process on this one. But it was also the thing I was going to mention earlier was that I didn’t know about this kind of stuff till I’d done some action that the stunt teams usually shoot like a stunt viz or like a basically a previz where they’re in their gym. And they usually put on really bad music and cut it together and they try to act like the character that it makes you laugh. It makes you cry. But sometimes it can be a helpful guide for like how they thought it would fit together. And even too sometimes because they’re shooting it in pieces,

 

you’ll get the stuff and they’ll be like, okay, they’re on this side of the room. And now this shot there of like what happens in between or like they’re shooting that thing two days later on a cable.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

So you’re like, it’s I found it helpful a few times. Cause I was trying to figure out a way to connect A to B. But then I was looking at the stunt vids and be like, okay, they still have to do that shot. All right. Actually I remember in that first temp I sent the first work in progress. I would cut in the stunt viz for parts that we didn’t have yet to show–

 

Erin Deck:

So you were the one who started that. That’s why we all have to follow suit afterwards. No. That was actually really helpful. Cutting in like the previz of the section that either wasn’t shot or was shot poorly. If we had the previz, you could like slug that in to the middle of the fight and you could send that to the director and be like, this is what we need

 

Jay Prychidny:

Yeah it was helpful. Having that stunt vids.

 

Jay Prychidny:

… it is, I did episode seven, which had a bunch of fights and there was one fight that was in the construct virtual world and it kept going from place to place and… Just the way it was shot, it was very complicated. So, having the stunt visit was actually great because oftentimes you can piece it together, how the fight’s supposed to go together. But I looked at that stunt there’s a lot cuz I was like I didn’t know how the footage was supposed to go together at all. I didn’t know what they had in mind for a bunch of those shots. So that was actually really helpful.

 

Stephen Philipson:

I found… In my case, I’m jealous of you guys now because my stunt visits, I mean, they are good reference, but they were changed quite a bit on set I found.

 

Jay Prychidny:

They were changed, but I still got a lot of good information. I don’t know.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Yeah, it was interesting in episode seven, also there was like a real push and pull with the director on another one of the fight scenes because the director really wanted to do the whole fight in one shot. That just always make me crazy because you can’t really edit anything. So I wonder what am I doing?

 

Jay Prychidny:

I don’t know. It’s such a funny thing with directors sometimes. They really just love the idea of doing something in a single take.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst: Yeah.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Which is great if it works, but I think usually it doesn’t work. I mean, I don’t fully understand… I understand if it’s Children Of Men and you have like, an entire war going on in one shot and then you are like, “Oh”, like that’s impressive but it’s not-

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Yeah.

 

Jay Prychidny:

I don’t really understand the idea of doing like a fight… I’m not sure if the audience enjoys it more or if the audience even notices, anyway, long story short, like the shot was great like really but It’s still like 80% there and it’s like there’s no reason why you have to put up with only 80%, right? So, the producers decided to shoot a lot of… And it was the last block. So the producers decided to shoot a bunch of extra footage for that fight, in the event that it didn’t work, which thank goodness, they did, because we ended up using all of it. Actually that was fun because then I was like, really involved in the discussions on what they would shoot to make this one-shot work.

 

Erin Deck:

Oh, that’s cool.

 

Jay Prychidny:

So, in the end, I mean, there are still long sections that all play out, but in certain parts you have to cut away because if it’s not all in the shot, if it’s not all understandable from the shot and you don’t really understand what’s going on, you can’t just leave it like that.

 

Sarah Taylor:

So, what were the things that you were… When you were in the process of cutting from the one scene, the one-shot that you’re compelled to say, “You need to get this.” What were you looking for? Or how did you decide that?

 

Jay Prychidny:

It’s like when you don’t, like I’m so particular about really fully understanding, all the time, what’s going on. I hate the feeling of just a blur of stuff and you don’t really… Like there’s stuff happening and you’re like, “Yeah, sure.” But I hate that feeling. I always want to know precisely what’s happening. It’s just whenever I got confused, I put on my, kind of, audience dumb hat. I’m like, “I don’t understand this, I don’t understand that, what’s happening there. What’s going on there.” And for those moments, then I feel like I want a shot so I can understand this.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

And I think in those one take things as much as they try, there’s often times where the camera and the actors aren’t quite lined up.

 

Jay Prychidny: Yeah.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

So there ends up being unnatural pauses sometimes because the actors are waiting for the camera to turn around on them or to deliver a line. It just gets weird sometimes because it’s just all serving this complex technical part and it forces the actors not perform how they would instinctually let’s say, because they’re just overly cognizant of the technical parts of it. I think too, it’s more effective and justified I guess, when there’s actually a dramatic motivation for the character to be with them, for like the whole shot, like in the Battle Of The Bastards in Game of Thrones, I’m sure a lot of people have seen that, if not all of you guys. It’s not a one shot scene, but there’s a long shot with John when the horses are going around him and he’s totally isolated and it was just… I remember being really impressed with it because you just really felt like you were there with him and the peril of it was just overwhelming, but just a normal fight, it just becomes a bit indulgent and awful.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Yeah, like single shots are impressive when there’s something like really impressive happening.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Yeah.

 

Jay Prychidny:

For me, it’s a lot of directors seem to think that the single shot in itself is impressive and it’s like no, no, no, no.

 

Stephen Philipson:

I just can’t help thinking of 1917, because I saw that recently and I mean, there’s so much work in that movie to think about how to use the camera movement for storytelling. Every beat is so well-planned. I think it’s probably really hard to have that level of attention to detail that you need to be able to rehearse and plan on a TV schedule.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Yeah.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Yeah

 

Stephen Philipson:

Because if you’re going to do it in one shot, you’re really at the mercy of just the vision of the director, in terms of knowing exactly how the story is going to come across to the audience.

 

Jay Prychidny:

And I think the scene still feels… Like the one in seven, I think it still feels cool and unique because even though it’s not all in one shot, there are long stretches that are still in one shot. So, I think that’s still in and of itself cool, to me anyway, it feels cool that way, because you do feel like you are with him more. Just getting in some additional shots in there, I don’t think it really takes away from that feeling for an audience, but people have different ideas about that.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Well, that’s the big… People have different ideas about everything.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Of course.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Especially, you know things that the directors have shot and then when you get to the showrunner producer scenario of what you have to adjust and change, and then what finally gets to the end, with the audience. Was there big differences between what you got from director’s cut, to what the final episode was?

 

Stephen Philipson:

I can take that one because we had the first, I think it’s six or seven minutes of episode 201 and this was a bit of an issue of… I think we’ll probably talk about this a little bit later, but just the fact that Alison wasn’t in Vancouver, this is the Showrunner Allison Schapker.

 

Stephen Philipson:

So we did the first cut of the very first fight scene in the bar in Episode 201. She just reacted very negatively to a couple of things. One, I think the art direction wasn’t really what she was thinking, like it sort of had the wrong feel and look, visually. And she was very concerned because it was the very first thing the audience was going to see and so basically she threw the entire thing 4out and we reshot the whole thing. I mean, I give her kudos for having… The wherewithal… Anyway to just go to Netflix and say, “Look, this is not the way I want it”. And it’s not just the editing or the performances or whatever. It’s really, it’s like the look and feel and what we can achieve with the footage. And also the way the fight was originally shot.

 

Stephen Philipson:

It was very much from the point of view of the different Kovacs fighting in the bar. Whereas in reality, it’s…. Really Trepp’s point of view… Like that’s important at that point because we’re with Trepp, as we’re wondering who is the real Kovacs and I mean, I just didn’t have that originally. So yeah, there was this one scene that I worked on for weeks and weeks, lots of back and forth to see if we could make it work and then after a couple of weeks they threw out the entire thing and I mean, because I ended up actually working on Episode 201 pretty much chipping away at it, the entire time I was on the show, it was very much like a pilot for Season Two, like it was really the first thing you would see of the season that would really establish the new season, how it’s going to look and feel.

 

Stephen Philipson:

And also there’s a lot of attention to Kovacs performance to make sure that that was right, like it followed properly from Joel Kinnaman’s performance. So I was working on that scene, I think the entire time I was on the show, I mean, it was great to have that much time to work on one scene, but of course then they reshot it and it was even bigger than it was originally and so I got a massive amount of footage to deal with and then we had to cut it in the end very quickly at the end of the show.

 

Sarah Taylor:

 

Right.

 

Stephen Philipson:

But I’m really glad that they pulled the trigger on re-shooting. There was a lot of back and forth over whether or not it was a good idea, but it really is dramatically better in the final show and just, the cinematography is great. It’s the original director who came back to shoot it, so it wasn’t anything against the director. I think it was just with the craziness of Alison needing to be in the writers room and on top of everything that… The art direction got through to the set without her really… Well, I don’t know, I mean, I wasn’t there, I’m not sure exactly what happened, but she… I don’t think she saw everything, until it was too late.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Yeah.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Someone screwed up.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

That was it.

 

Erin Deck:

I think probably what happens with a lot of those like first… And because it was like a pilot that you were cutting, in that first scene. But I find that what happens with a lot of those first scenes is that, they always get reshot.

 

Stephen Philipson:

Yeah.

 

Erin Deck:

Because, I think they’re scared to put as much money and as much effort and as much time as they need to, into that first scene. And so they just treat it like how they’re going to treat all the other scenes and then when they realize, and they watch it and they’re like, “Oh, well that’s not an amazing first scene for the beginning of a season. And then they’re like, “Oh, okay. So we do have to go back and spend the money”. I think that happens a lot.

 

Stephen Philipson:

Yeah. The original scene, like it was great. It was very well done. It was a very complicated fight, there was lots of cool stuntwork.

 

Erin Deck:

I thought you did a really good job on that first version. Stephen Philipson:

 

Oh, well, no one’s seen it, so, but no, that’s a very good point. I think it wasn’t unique and special in the way that it could be. I think they planned to reshoot the whole thing in two days, which was very quick, but they really planned it properly and it had a lot of time to plan it. And so even though it was quite rushed to put together, I mean, it was quite spectacular too because they… I think everyone was comfortable with the scene and it was comfortable working together as well too. I think originally the scene was one of the first things that was shot. So I mean, by the time they reshot it, everyone had had a chance to work together for a few months and it really does look a lot more polished and a lot more spectacular.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

I find like every movie I’ve done, the stuff shot on the first two days is problematic up until the end, like without fail. And the smart ones end up scheduling like the most banal stuff for the first day or two. But then even then that stuff is still… It still has to be good, right?

 

Stephen Philipson:

Yeah.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

So, there’s always challenges for sure.

 

Stephen Philipson:

Well, there is always… There’s that period, I mean, the actors don’t quite know their characters yet. They may not be used to working with… They haven’t sort of developed the chemistry maybe with the other actors as well, too. So that always takes a little bit of time. I know Anthony Mackie, the first little while that he was shooting and we were really trying to figure out, should he just sort of ape Joel Kinnaman, or it should be more this way or that way. So there was a lot of working on the tone of his performance.

 

Erin Deck:

Oh, yeah, he also had to like… I think, figure out exactly how much to give of him because he’s such… Everyone loves him and he gave us tons of stuff to work with, but too much, then you start not liking the character.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

That was the biggest challenge in my episode, it was scaling back Poe, cuz I think he knows that he was one of the favorite characters from the first Season too, and really embraced like the comic relief aspects of the character and I was really surprised when she saw the directors cut… Like how put off she was and all these moments, she’s like, “There’s no tension in his storyline”. I’m like, “It’s a good point”, right?

 

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

 

Jay Prychidny:

He treated a lot of things very cavalierly.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Yes.

 

Jay Prychidny:

So those are generally the notes were trying to make it seem like, he’s having a conflict.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Yeah.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Or he’s emotionally invested and it’s like, you look at the footage and it’s like, uuh.

 

Jay Prychidny:

There was a lot of trickery from my part, for sure, in that way.

 

Stephen Philipson:

Well just to go back to what I can’t remember who said it earlier, just the fact that… Oh, I think it was you Geoff, you said that he sort of saw himself as comic relief and there… I mean, I found there was times where he maybe had a bit of a caricatured element to it or a cartoony element, but in the end, he ended up being a character with quite a lot of depth.

 

Erin Deck:

Yeah.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Oh, yeah.

 

Stephen Philipson:

So it wasn’t always appropriate for him to be sort of cartoony and he might’ve not have seen himself that way at the beginning, but that’s something that we did have to kind of bring out over the course of the edit. I think he’s one of the characters that people really attach to and like, and…

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Any press I ever read on the show that he was always a standout for the writer.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

 

Jay Prychidny:

I mean, Alison the showrunner was very specific, like, very specific about what she wanted out of performances and directing and all those kinds of things. So, I think a lot of our challenges on the show were around that, where Alison’s expectations of things didn’t match up to the reality of what was on the screen, performance, point of view, like we’re talking about now and with some of the directing as

 

well, which was the original question back 20 minutes ago, was about the director, but there was– A lot of sequences changed dramatically in my episode. Like you wouldn’t even know if it was the same footage necessarily because the sequence has just changed so much to try to get closer back to what Alison was expecting to see or try something entirely different.

 

Jay Prychidny:

In episode four, there’s that whole sequence of them going into the decaying stack and the director shot that all as one-takes and it was kind of like a theatrical performance with single takes and then in the final cut, it’s all just a whole barrage of editing different shots, different all kinds of footage and stuff. So there was one example where the director’s vision is just completely gone. Even in my first cut in my editors cut of that episode, I put one edit in that scene, one edit and the director was like appalled-

 

Sarah Taylor:

Oh no.

 

Jay Prychidny:

… that I put any edit at all. You look at the final episode, it’s probably 300 edits. I don’t know.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

I remember because Jay, had an overlap. So he started our show a bit late and they asked me to just sort of throw his scenes together in case the producers ever needed to see something in a pinch to be like, “Do we have the scene?” Like that kind of thing. So, I guess Graham helped out as well actually with that. But I remember when I came to that stuff, I actually called her. I’m like, “So what did you have in mind for this scene?” Like, “How is this going to work?”, because there’s like a green screen and weird places and-

 

Stephen Philipson:

I think that I find,… I don’t know if you guys find this in series television because the editors are often a part of the tone meeting and I like to be just to get a sense of what’s in the showrunners head, but I mean, you go to the tone meeting and it’s like the showrunner and the director and all the department heads and the showrunners like, “This is how I see it. I want to see this, this, this, this, this, and this”.

 

Stephen Philipson:

And then I guess the show runner goes off to the writer’s room and starts worrying about storytelling and getting scripts out in time and then everyone else goes to the set and things evolve and change and some showrunners… I’ve worked with a lot who sort of liked the writing process and are more sort of in that zone and so when they see the scene again, I mean, I’m the first person who sees it. I’m like looking at my notes from the tone meeting and looking at the footage and going, “Yeah, that’s not matching up or whatever”, but you put it together as best you can and then you show it to the show runner and they’re like, “Well, that’s not matching up with what I’ve put out in the tone meeting”. So I find that happen sometimes.

 

Erin Deck: Yeah

 

Stephen Philipson:

And I’m sure it’s probably just… Especially in a shooting, like there’s just so much going on. It must be really, really hard for showrunners to really be able to manage every single element through the whole process.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

I’ve embraced Erin’s… I don’t know. It’s not really a trick, but when we listen in on the tone meetings, Erin would start recording them on her phone …

 

Stephen Philipson:

To have as evidence later, to be able to…

 

Erin Deck:

I can’t actually take full credit for that-

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Just take it.

 

Erin Deck:

… because I learned that from… Yeah, from Paul Day, because when we were on Badlands and we were working remote with the directors, he would just like hit record on his phone when the director was like giving notes over the phone and I was like, “Oh, that’s handy”. So I started doing it at the tone meetings, but it was helpful with Alison because she was very, very specific in how she wanted the tone and everything to be. So, yeah, because there was a lot of times I would get scenes that did not match what she wanted.

 

Stephen Philipson:

Yeah.

 

Jay Prychidny:

I mean, it is always super helpful to be in… To know the tone meeting but It was stressful after listening to the tone meeting, yeah, yeah. And then the footage comes in and you… No, no, no, and you’re just like putting things together and you know, it’s wrong.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Oh, no.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

It’s true. It does induce some anxiety, but it also, at least gives you a chance. Like, so when you… I found on 208, when I got to the producers cut, it was like, “I know what you’re going to say and yeah, its all we have. We don’t have the shot you are looking for”, and I’d already been able to start thinking about trying to… How to solve some of these issues and like the director was happy with it, but I knew that she wouldn’t be so I’d start getting ahead of it a bit. I found that to be, sort of, helpful and even putting the

 

scene together for myself when the director did get stuff right. I would assemble the scene and then I would go back and listen to it after I’d put it together.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

So for myself then I’d be like, “Okay, you missed this” beat like, “What happened?” And then I’d go back and dig things out that way. So I found it constructive that way. Because, I guess to be fair, like more often than not the scenes were in pretty good shape, but they certainly there were challenges we encountered, I think we can all attest to that.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Yes.

 

Stephen Philipson:

So, variation on the theme. So I think both the directors I worked with, I really enjoyed working with and I thought they did, like, they did a really good job just gathering the material that we needed on set. But one of the, one of them, like I put together, my editor’s cut and I really enjoyed it. And I thought there was some cool stuff and he really liked it and we worked on it.

 

Stephen Philipson:

But then over the course of the six days, we sort of worked on it and worked on it and worked on it. And it kind of started to get over baked, if that makes any sense. It’s like we worked on it too much to the point where people had a negative reaction to it at the producers cut stage. I kept saying, “No like this”, I think we’ve got some really good material here. I think the director did a really, really great job and I had to just help people realize that it was going to be very good show that maybe we just tightened up, like over-tightened things a little bit and then I had Alison say, close to the end of the project. She said, “You know, we were all really worried about the directing, but I think the director actually did a really great job”. And I just said, “Yeah, I mean, it was hard because I felt like we had the moments, but we just sort of… I think, I don’t know, we lost sight of them or something.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Well, I’m sure as you said, there’s the challenges and hard scenes. What were your favorite scenes to edit? And maybe they were your hard scenes, but ended up being your favorite scenes.

 

Stephen Philipson:

I think from myself, my favorite was just… And this is… Maybe I’m not quite answering the question, but for me from the beginning right up to the re-sleeving sequence was just for me a lot of fun because that’s the first thing of season two that the audience sees. And we were able to just do a lot of fun stuff. It’s just a lot of very expressive sort of dreamlike stuff when Anthony Mackie’s in the tank, but then sort of, the way that shifts very quickly to a very frenetic thing as he sort of wakes up and realizes that he’s underwater and doesn’t know where he is. So we got to sort of shift from a dream-like feel to a more frenetic action feel and we’re sort of bringing in flashbacks and images from everywhere. So we were able to be very expressive with the cutting and I enjoyed that because I think that was where we were sort of finding how season two was going to be.

 

Stephen Philipson:

 

And I really enjoy that sort of process of trying to figure out what the show is going to feel like and I mean, that’s kind of the biggest challenge as well, too, in the sense that we reshot six minutes of it. So having to process all that footage twice, but I’m just really proud of the way it sort of flows from the very first time the spotlight comes on to when you, sort of, meet Anthony Mackie in the re-sleeving tank and comes out and he’s, we sort of get into the story. So that’s a very long sequence, but it’s really where… For myself, where I really feel like I had a lot of input into the storytelling of it and how it would sort of lead the audience through all that and we’re just able to do some really fun cinematic stuff with it.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, it was really, it was good.

 

Stephen Philipson:

Thanks.

 

Sarah Taylor:

It got me to watch the series. So that was nice.

 

Stephen Philipson:

Thank you, mission accomplished. I suppose.

 

Jay Prychidny:

You know, really the scenes that come to mind are like the really simple scenes, as an editor, I approach everything from a standpoint of emotion and it’s like everything… It’s always about… For me, what is the emotion that I’m trying to convey and how do I generate that feeling in the viewer as well? So really the scenes that I like the most are where I feel like there’s a really clear emotion I want to convey and I feel like I’ve done it successfully.

 

Jay Prychidny:

So when they first pitched this season to me, when they told me what it was about… Was about this kind of love story and I really liked that idea of the love story of this woman who looks like the woman you loved, but she’s not the same woman. And what does that mean? And I think, I mean, in scifi I like scifi the best when it’s telling something emotional that we understand in an offbeat way, in like a context that we don’t understand, but that we connect to it based on the same emotion, whatever it is, and so this idea of seeing someone, Quell and her not being Quell, I think that’s like a real life thing can happen in crazy other ways, right?

 

Jay Prychidny:

So, people changing, people not seeming the same, relationships changing, this ephemeral thing in human relationships that we don’t really understand fully, intellectually. So I was really excited that episode four, my first episode was the one where Quell and Kovacs were coming back together in a real strong way with real [midi 00:50:16] scenes between them and I thought they both did a good job and performance, and I just really love the vibe of those scenes and Quell’s kind of loss and confusion and all of the emotions going on there. So those really, I enjoyed the moment and they’re really so simple, really like a lot of them, a lot of them are just two actors across from each other, but I think I did add something to it as well. That wasn’t necessarily, just wasn’t right there.

 

Sarah Taylor:

You mentioned that you… We paste things a bit slower than what they were shot as, and stuff like that, like you added extra emotion.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Yeah. I mean, because generally in these types of shows, like you have to just keep the pace going, going, going, and producers really start to get anxious, if things slow down too much. I always feel like I’m trying to get away with something by like playing something slowly. But when there’s moments like this, like I’m talking about with Quell, it’s like you have to play those slowly, I think for them to work and be effective. So for me, it’s often about like picking your moments and like trying to sneak them in whether people don’t know, like you are not only fast, fast, fast, slooooow, and then fast, fast, again. So they  hopefully  don’t  notice  things  are  slowing  down,  but  yeah,  with  some  of  those  Quell   scenes. because normally everything’s faster than they shot it with a bunch of those scenes, it was

slower than they shot it, that dangerous stare.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

 

Stephen Philipson:

You liked it. I know.

 

Stephen Philipson:

I always find producers are really worried, especially in the streaming age that people feel like it’s moving too slowly. They’re going to click and change to another show…

 

Jay Prychidny:

Yeah, you find when it’s compelling. If you-

 

Stephen Philipson:

Well, exactly. If it’s emotional If the viewer is engaged with these emotions, and you’ve successfully

drawn them into that emotion, if somebody is responding emotionally to something, they’re not going to want to change. So I just find it’s less the speed of what things are moving at, but more just-

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Yeah, exactly.

 

Jay Prychidny:

It’s engagement. It’s not about speed. It’s about engagement, and you always want engagement to be super high. As we know, sometimes things can be cut really fast, and your engagement is at an all time low, because it’s just boring.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

I find that on films a lot too. There’s often notes to tighten up at the beginning. The beginning is gotta to be faster, and you’re like, “No.” It’s like, “It can’t be too fast.” I gave a friend note recently and I was like,

 

“You guys have overcut the beginning. It’s just… It moves too fast to get absorbed by the characters. If you can’t… You can’t get absorbed by the story. It’s just… You got to slow down, give people a chance to connect with it.”

 

Stephen Philipson:

It is tricky though, because when you’re working on an indie feature, which I’ve been doing less and less of now, you got to believe on some level, that the people are going to… They’re trapped in a theater, so they’re not… It’ll not a lot to get them to actually get up and walk out of the theater. But I guess now the problem we face is that anyone can just leave the narrative space that you’re creating quickly and easily at any time, which is a little too bad. I think it does change the way we tell stories a little bit, that we do have to be engaging in a different way at the beginning, but I agree with you Geoff. If you go too far in that direction of just being… You have to trick people to stay engaged by, I don’t know, just throwing more stuff at them. It might be masking a deeper problem.

 

Sarah Taylor:

I’m assuming that they’re… Well, maybe not problems, but lots of visual effects, and a lot of amazing visual effects in the series. What did you receive in the edit suite? Did you get pre-viz…

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

No,

 

Erin Deck:

No.

 

Sarah Taylor:

It didn’t work for you, and also I know that you mentioned scenes that were left, maybe 10 seconds ended up being much longer, when the visual effects came back. So, what happened with the workflow of the visual effects?

 

Erin Deck:

For me, the way that I started it, Shelly and I, I really considered her a complete equal partner when it came to the visual effects. And she knew the script, and she knew the visual effects inside and out, and we would get a scene that there were supposed to be VFX and things were just not adding up, and I had no idea. And her and I would talk it through and she would give ideas and I would give ideas, and we would start to kind of build it that way, obviously with, including the director, and that in the conversation. But I found at least to start, I really relied on Shelly’s input, and her just true knowledge of VFX. And we would just start building it together to see how it would work, and then I would take it from there and get the director involved. If I was running into any complications-

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

But you should have pre-viz. At a show like this, at the end, because when we circled… because I was around to the end, of her saying, Alison. If we are lucky enough to do this again, we should really try to do more previews. She’s like, “Oh, don’t get me started. Everything’s going to be previews next time.”

 

Sarah Taylor:

 

So what would you do then if you didn’t have anything? You and your assistants would create-

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

You have to guess sometimes. You’re like, “Remember that thing in 2008, there was… It was a full CG,” and I’m like, “I don’t know, five seconds, I could see that working.” And then sometimes the VFX… because we ended up switching VFX supervisors part way through, which ended up being a really good thing in the end, I think, because everyone was really comfortable and he was based in LA, and all these kinds of things that made it work. But remember sometimes he’d be like, “Yeah, you’ve ball-parked it pretty… It feels pretty good.” But then there was a couple of times when it was the opposite. It needed to be longer or shorter.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

I remember one time Dale’s like, “So they made this shot, the exact same length as the slug you put in.” And I was like, “Oh, that slug I just timed out, how long it would take someone to read everything on screen.” Like I never thought… So we adjusted that to make… I was like, “Make the shot as long as you need to you for it to be cool.”

 

Erin Deck:

Yeah. I forgot to mention though, Dale, was a huge part in helping figure out-

 

Jay Prychidny:

He was the VFX editor.

 

Erin Deck:

What we had the ability to do… because I think a lot of times… because we didn’t know what exactly… how far we could take it. Us as editors we’re like, “We want to take it as far as we could.” And Dale would help us figure out what actually can happen and what we can do, and he was a huge part of the process of figuring out the VFX and keeping it organized, and also… Because we would want to add more VFX in. I always… I like VFX, and so I would… And you can only get-

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

You don’t have to pay for them though.

 

Erin Deck:

Four for this scene or two for this scene, and I had cut in like seven. So Dale would be like, “Okay. Well, let’s figure this out. How we can work it together.” So, yeah.

 

Stephen Philipson:

For me he ended up being really sort of a go between our post and the VFX producers who are in Vancouver, I think. Figure things out with Dale and then he would talk to them, and then they would talk to him, and [it sort of became a collaboration that way.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Yeah. He was really… He had a lot of skills in a lot of areas. It’s, I think, gave–

 

Stephen Philipson:

Diplomacy.

 

Jay Prychidny:

–him way more work, because people kept giving him work. He had so much to do, and… I remember he’d be on the phone with the producers, actually designing shots, for… Not for temp, but for the design that will be going forward. And I was like, “Dale, that’s not your job. The vendor is supposed to be designing these shots, not you.” And he’s like, “Oh, well no. I’ll do it.” But, he was way overworked, but that’s because people… And, like I asked, why are they having you design these shots as opposed to the vendor? And they were like, “Well, it’s just easier for them to communicate with me, than the vendor of your visual effects.” So I was like, “That’s a huge vote of confidence,” and they’re not even in the room with them, but they felt… The producers are is so confident working with him that they were like, “Just have Dale design the shots, and then give them to the vendor, just say this is what we want.”

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

But another thing with him, because he was, he has a background, he was a visual effects producer at a company called Core in Toronto, for quite a while. He worked on Splice, I think. And I remember there’d be things where I’d asked Dale. I’d be like, “So if we were to do this, then… It’s not fully 3D. Could we cheat it in 2D?” And, he would always know like, “Well, you could do it up till here, but after that, then they’d have to do 3D, or this background element, they’d have to render…” I’m like, “Okay,” Just the feasibility of things, just so you’re not pitching shots that will make the producers hang up on you, kind of thing. It was awesome for that too. And all the work flow. Once they laid out the workflow, it was like, “Thank God we have this guy.”

 

Erin Deck:

Oh, I know.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

The tracking everything, I was like, “Yeah, I wouldn’t have known where to start with that stuff.”

 

Sarah Taylor:

Were there any scenes that you were blown away by when you watch them, when everything was finished?

 

Jay Prychidny:

Oh yeah. I thought the visual effects in this were fantastic.

 

Erin Deck:

All the visual effects?

 

Stephen Philipson: Yeah, they were great.

 

Jay Prychidny:

 

And, it’s often so much better than I imagine, which usually it’s the opposite. Usually you’re disappointed and I was never disappointed with anything.

 

Erin Deck:

Big Danica, in episode one-

 

Stephen Philipson:

Oh yeah.

 

Erin Deck:

In a square?

 

Sarah Taylor:

That one was great.

 

Erin Deck:

She looked awesome.

 

Stephen Philipson:

I was going to talk about that actually, because it’s a very… This is a point where Dale’s expertise, and him as a go between, between set and myself was very useful, because that scene… Again, we were chipping away at it for a long time, because they shot Danica a lot later. And so we had to prepare the scene as if she was there, pick all our angles, and just try to cheat them with… We cut her out of some of the concept art and just pasted in floating Danica wherever she needed to be. We figured out when to be on her close and went wide. We had to imagine it in our minds, but I was, I don’t know, I was excited about… It’s like animation.

 

Stephen Philipson:

You plan out everything before the animation is done. And then they’ve had to shoot the elements of Danica, but that became a bit of a problem, because they hired somebody with an array of 64 cameras. So what they were to do is they were going to shoot Danica with 64 cameras all around her, and they were just going to shoot her whole performance, and then just basically convert her into a 3D version of her doing the speech, and then put the 3D Danica wherever, and then fill in all the details, but there was a lot of anxiety. I was very anxious, because I was trying to figure out how we could get some temporary version of Danica, so that I could cut her performance and they were just like, “Oh, you can’t.” I’m like, “I feel like we’re going to need to choose takes and decide, which is better and if the performances…”

 

Stephen Philipson:

And they’re like, “Well, no, because all you’re going to get is you’re going to get 64 wide angle shots of Danica that are going to be totally useless. They’re just going to be a bulging cheek or a pan.” I really felt very anxious about that process, and tried to explain that to everyone, and they tried to ease our worries. And we were promised that we could have one shot that would be wider, that I could at least choose takes, so they did that, and so I chose all the takes. But then what they ended up doing, because there was a lot of anxiety over whether or not this huge array of cameras would actually work, they also just shot the actor against green screen, but putting her in exactly the right angle, with exactly the right

 

lens perspective and lens dynamics as the shots that I had picked originally, as they shot all those conventionally.

 

Stephen Philipson:

And then I put together two versions. I put together a version where we just did a temporary key of her and slapped her into the scene. And again, working with Dale, to figure out how that would look in 3D. If it was going to be passable or if they were going to have to cheat it too much, or if they could take these cut out Danica’s and give them volume. And then I did a version where it was one shot from the 3D camera array that I just put in a little box, so that we could see her performance.

 

Stephen Philipson:

And I think I… I don’t think they had made the decision before I ended the show. Geoff, you might know a little bit more about that. I think I just left those two versions and then moved on. But in the end the 64 camera array just failed. It didn’t work. They couldn’t do it for whatever reason, that’s… We ended up just using the 2D greenscreen versions of her, but I thought it worked out quite well. I think working with Dale and working with the VFX artist, the… We could cheat enough volumetric, and shifting perspective from the 2D green screenshots that it looked like a 3D Danica in square in the end. And I was very pleased with it. I think… I thought it had come together well. And it was as gratifying in the sense that it was the vision that I had, or how I imagined it, is how it wound up, after all that back and forth with the whole thing, which was cool.

 

Sarah Taylor:

I want to touch on the sound design thing for this… For the first three episodes you mentioned, the director’s cuts got extra sound work on them. So maybe just talk about why that happened and what was going on there.

 

Stephen Philipson:

Again, I think with 201 being the pilot, they really… This had its ups and downs, but they really wanted the director’s cut to… Or the first cut that they give to Skydance and all the execs, to really feel polished and have the signature sounds so that everyone would be comfortable with how it looked. So what we did is, we did the director’s cut. We gave it to the sound people.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

It was this company called OCD. That’s an LA based company. They did season one. I think they won some stuff for it, and they really wanted them… I think what you’re saying, Steve is part of it, but also I think for a bit of the passing the button to Sounddogs in Toronto. They wanted to see the security, for lack of a better term of knowing that the groundwork would be laid by these guys, so that the Sounddogs would have the elements and get a sense of how… There’d be some continuity with season one.

 

Stephen Philipson:

What was exciting about it for me was the chance to collaborate with sound people before locking, because, we can get into the technical challenges of it in a minute, but creatively, it was great.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

 

Yeah. They were good. They did a lot of cool stuff.

 

Stephen Philipson:

Yeah, and it really helped me-

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

The stuff that we would not have done totally.

 

Stephen Philipson:

Totally. Oh, for sure.

 

Erin Deck:

See, and I-

 

Erin Deck:

For me, I don’t… I just wasn’t that blown away by it. They are amazing and they did some really great stuff, but I don’t know. I was actually… I didn’t have any creative input with them, because we gave them one cut, while we were still cutting, and they did all the sound to that one cut. And then we got it back like a week after. We had still been cutting, so we… I say we, but Shelly had to fit it all into what we were working with. And, there was a lot of stuff that we took forward and we really liked, but they just gave a blanket sound design, and not for even the whole show, just for specific parts, because I think they were really focused on one. And so two didn’t get us much, but they still gave great stuff back.

 

Stephen Philipson:

Yeah. It’s… Well, what I will say… I know I would… I think we did get a bit of back and forth, which I really enjoyed, but it… I think for me the most, where it really helped, was in the first six minutes that I was talking about earlier, because I think some of the… It’s funny, I watched the show a few days ago, and it really sounds exactly the same. I remember remarking. I’m like, “Wow, this sounds exactly like the temp score.” But, I think they must have just used the same elements in the mix. But I think that was very helpful for me, because we were trying to sell a very dreamlike tone off the top. And, if the sound had been wrong and they’d watched it, it might’ve felt too slow or too ethereal or too weird or whatever, but the sound became very much a part of that particular sequence.

 

Stephen Philipson:

And I think that helps sell it a lot, more so than what I’m used to, which is… It’s more of a passing the baton scenario, where you do your temp sound and then they redo everything. But that was one area where I thought it actually, did help us creatively to have that ahead of time. But then for the rest of the show, it was more of just a technical pain in the butt, of having to carry all these sound elements and edit with all these tracks of audio.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Yeah. It’s definitely… They do that on movies, larger movies and whatnot, where they do the sound mix early, and then editors are carrying those elements for a long time, which is just interesting. I’ve never done it. I was the only editor who didn’t do it on this show, which I was kind of grateful for really, because it’s always… I’ve encountered this on another show as well, where producers just kind of say,

 

“Oh, we’ll give it to the sound team and they’ll do it, and then they’ll send it back and then it’ll sound great.”

 

Jay Prychidny:

It’s like, “Well, but that’s actually not.” It’s usually more complicated than that. You’re not just giving everything to sound house, to do their thing, and then they send it back. There’s a lot more back and forth. There’s a lot of creative decisions that have to get made. Someone has to take a lead on the creative of a show, whoever that person is going to be, someone who’s going to take responsibility and carry all these things through.

 

Jay Prychidny:

So I would have found it really frustrating in this scenario because I would have been like, “Okay, I have a lot of ideas here, and I don’t want to just take what they’re giving me, and I don’t know why I should have to do that, but anyway.”

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

But in this case, we had, at least for my episode, we had already temped it all. And I remember actually when we showed them the… When we were spotting it, I don’t think Alison was on. I think it was just James, but when we got to the big circle fight, and we watched a bunch of it, then we paused it, and it got… The sound I got from OCD was like, “All right. So we can just move on from this section, what’s next?”

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Tom had did such a great job temping it already. But there was other parts where… We have libraries of sound effects, but there’s oftentimes where it’s like, “Well, I don’t have that futuristic car sound or whatever, that gun sound.” I don’t know. So I did find it to be pretty useful and cool. I enjoyed it, the process that way.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Yeah. For sure, if it… If the process works, it’s great. But yeah, there’s just so many ways for it to go wrong.

 

Sarah Taylor:

My last question, before we open it up. There was a big shift from season one to season two, with the amount of nudity and sex. And I know that Jay had some specific notes about sex scenes and stuff. So I don’t know if you wanted to talk a little bit about why that happened, or what was the trouble there?

 

Jay Prychidny:

Yeah, totally the two seasons are quite different, and that was one of the things that I was really excited about. The new thing that I was excited about was to work on an extreme television show, because television shows often feel very watered down, because they’re for television, but like Altered Carbon season one was for Netflix, and it was like intense. A lot of nudity, a lot of risque stuff. And-

 

Sarah Taylor:

A lot of swearing and drugs.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Violence, and that nude fight with Raylene in season one. That was… I was stunned by that scene, as a scene, not just for a TV show, for anything. I thought it was incredible. So… But I do know that I had one of the only sex scenes in the series, in episode four, in season two. And interestingly, it wasn’t even really written in the script as a sex scene, it was… In the script, it’s basically they fall out of frame.

 

Jay Prychidny:

And then it was in a tone meeting where the director was like, “Okay, well it says, they fall out frame or whatever, but there’s not a lot of sex in the show, and this could be a big sex scene.” And in the tone meeting they were like, “Oh yeah. I guess that’s true. Yeah.” So they shot tons of footage on it. The scene is quite long, even as it is in the final cut. It’s quite a long scene, but it got a lot of notes in terms of removing frames, of nudity. And there was… I found that really strange, because I thought this was what we wanted. We wanted the big sex scene, but apparently, and Alison explained to me on that front that, Netflix said the nudity was a barrier for audience members in season one. So whatever their metrics are that determine these things, they found that, I don’t know, people were shutting off, or I don’t know, when people were nude.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

And the violence too. The violence was also flagged as a barrier as well.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Yeah, exactly. So it was an effort on season two to tone that stuff down, which I don’t know-

 

Erin Deck:

A little disappointing, because we toned it down, I think by 98%. I was quite surprised, because… I agree with you Jay, it would have been fun to work on an extreme show, but yeah, it was the PG version.

 

Jay Prychidny:

But didn’t someone say season two was really successful?

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

My understanding is that it’s been more successful than season one.

 

Jay Prychidny:

So maybe they know what we’re talking about.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Let’s try opening it up to the audience.

 

Audience Question:

I actually have a question, so not necessarily about the show itself, but the process. I know you guys all briefly explained how you got onto the show, but I’m really curious about the interview process. How you prepare yourself for one of these kinds of higher profile shows, and what do you think you do well in the interview? I know you all said again that you’re not sure what essentially got you the job from the

 

interviews, but still, there must be something that perhaps you’re confident about going in . And sorry, and a second question on top of that is, how did the second interview differ from the first?

 

Jay Prychidny:

I want to tell my story around this. It’s quite funny and maybe it’s useful too, I don’t know. But it was funny, because I really didn’t think I was going to do this show, because I had another show that I was going to do instead, which was a really big show. Usually when I get offered interviews, I take them, whether I can do this show or not, just because I like meeting with people and whatever. Anyway, so I went into the interview, just hardly even prepared at all. I didn’t know that I wanted to do this show, even if I was available, I was like, “I don’t even know if I want to do this show.” So I went into it just very casual in that way. And I think maybe that had something to do with it, I don’t know.

 

Stephen Philipson:

Didn’t you play hard to get as well, Jay, didn’t you-

 

Jay Prychidny:

Oh, I did, because [crosstalk 01:13:59] “Oh, I can’t do it. No, it’s not going to work out.” I don’t know, that seemed to make them want me more. I don’t know, because I kept saying like, “Oh no, I can’t. My current show,” I was on Snowpiercer season one at the time, so I was like, “Oh, that’s going long. That’s going like a month long, and so I can’t do this show.” And they’re like, “No, we’ll get someone else to cut your dailies for you.” And I’m like, “No, that’s stupid. No, I can’t do the show. I’m busy.” But they just… I don’t know, they kept wanting me to do this show. But anyway, the point is, I think in the interview… So it was just very casual, and I connected with the… So we did two interviews.

 

Jay Prychidny:

We did one with the producer, James Middleton, and then we did another one with Middleton and the show runner, and it was just very cool just, because I wanted to meet him. I wanted to talk to him. That’s all I really wanted out of the interview, was just meet him, and talk to him about his experience and the kind of shows he does, and that’s… So he asked questions about my shows, and it was just a really interesting conversation, just about the business and different… “What’s your experience with this, and what’s your experience with this, and how do you deal with this, and how do you deal with that?” And, “Oh, interesting.” For me, it wasn’t even really about Altered Carbon, because I didn’t even really think I liked the show that much, but when they did just tell me what season two was about, I was like, “Oh, that’s actually kind of interesting.” So they did hook me a little bit in the interview.”

 

Erin Deck:

That’s so funny Jay, because I was such a massive fan of the first season. I watched it as soon as it came out, and I loved it. And so when I got the interview with James, I was so excited. I Googled James, I Googled Alison. Adam and I started rewatching Altered Carbon season one again, just because we could, because we both loved it. And I also found out that James was the producer on the remake of Terminators, Genisys in Terminator is my favorite franchise. So I buttered him up in the first interview being like, “I loved… I love your Terminator movies.” And he was like, “Even Genisys?” And I was like, “Yes.”

 

Jay Prychidny:

 

Here’s two extremely different approaches.

 

Erin Deck:

Yeah. It’s funny. I knew with James that I had to sell myself. I knew that I had to really show that he wanted me, but then when I got the second interview with Alison almost instantly, I realized I just needed to show that they would want to… Like to work with me. I’d gotten the second interview, so it wasn’t about my talent. It wasn’t about how well I knew the show. I understood that it was making Alison like me. And it was easy because she’s very easy to get along with and interview with, so that was my approach or what happened with me.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Mine was similar, I guess. I did… I find it useful sometimes to do a bit of research on the genre, so you can sort of speak intelligently, and have some… Potentially some insights and references, and if you get into that conversation, at least you’re prepared for that.

 

Jay Prychidny:

That’s true. I made some SciFi references, and they were very impressed. I talked about Solaris, when they talked about the plot of season two and they were like, “Oh yes, Solaris.” I find that often helps in interviews, being able to pull out the right reference movie at the right time, and for everyone to go, “Oh.” Then, I don’t know. That’s worked for me in a bunch of interviews.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Yeah. But they for sure can backfire if it’s wrong. Well, there’s that, or if you’re just trying to make it seem like you’re smart, and you’re just pulling out a reference that’s not… Not really naturally related to what you were just talking about.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Yes, don’t do that.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Although, I will say Erin too what… It didn’t happen to me on this, but I’m pretty sure I lost a job one time because I had watched some stuff that the showrunner had done before and I remember him being like, “Yeah, you know it was pretty good. I only watched the first couple episodes. I’ve haven’t had time to watch,” and he’s like, “It’s terrible. I hate that show.” I’m like, “All right.” I’m like, “No, this character.” He’s, “Yeah. That show is the worst.” I’m like, “All right, nice to meet you. Take care. Good luck with the show.”

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

But the other thing that I did find that is helpful in this one, and I’ve sort of adapted, moving forward to is, listening to … If you can find any interviews that those people have done. I remember I found a podcast that Alison was on. It was a writer’s podcast. It was her and four other writers. It was kind of like this, a round table discussion. But I found it was just sort of helpful just to make me feel more comfortable. I kind of knew her more just by having listened to her talking to people. So for me at least I find that helps in interviews. Just be a bit more comfortable because you’re walking in cold. It just helps me be… I feel like I know the person a little bit.

 

Stephen Philipson:

I only had one interview. I’m not sure why I think because I had a bit of an in with Dieter originally.

 

Stephen Philipson:

I only ended up having one, but I guess in terms of my preparation, I didn’t know the show very well, but I did watch the show and really tried to feel … tried to figure out how, well, I figured out what they were looking for and then sort of figure out how my approach and my background could help them. I always try to fit attention onto what they want in an interview for better or worse, rather than just try to sell myself. But I think they appreciated that. If you sort of try approach it as you’re trying to figure out what they want, and then once you do sort of say, well, here’s what I can offer. Here’s how I can help you achieve that or whatever. That’s sort of my general approach. But I think, and this is really … I really enjoyed working, well working with both James and Alison, but James, he was the type of person that you could just sort of chat with. Alison as well.

 

Stephen Philipson:

And yeah, so my memory of the interview is really kind of figuring out is this sort of someone I can work with and thankfully I guess they thought I was someone they could work with. We worked out really well.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Yeah. I think you’re right, Erin. Once you get to that point, like the second interview, it’s like, is this a human that I want to hang out and make something with? Yeah?

 

Stephen Philipson:

Yeah.

 

Erin Deck:

Yeah.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

[inaudible 01:20:31] that kind of vibe with. It’s really that … Your work has been judged already then it’s just about your personality.

 

Jay Prychidny:

I think it’s so much about credits, kind of to an insane degree. A lot of the time, I think.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Anonymous asked, did Anthony Mackie

 

Sarah Taylor:

[crosstalk 01:20:50] his catchy phrase “Cut the check in the dailies”

 

Jay Prychidny:

Yeah. Whenever Anthony Mackie would do a performance, he thought was-

 

Erin Deck:

Was done.

 

Jay Prychidny:

-was satisfactory. Go, “Cut the check.”

 

Erin Deck:

Yeah. And sometimes he would do it after the first take.

 

Stephen Philipson:

I don’t remember ever getting “Cut the check.”

 

Erin Deck:

You never got “Cut the check”?

 

Stephen Philipson:

No. Maybe he just hated his performance in my episodes. [laughter] I hope he still got paid.

 

Jay Prychidny:

They only pay him when he says “Cut the check.”

 

Audience Question:

My question is … Well, I’m assuming the show was edited on Avid. And I’m curious to know from everybody, what do you think is the current status of the enemy world in the film industry. Do you think Adobe will be doing a big push for Premier Pro and Resolve becoming free software and being so powerful, do you think it’s changing? Or do you think the other entities are getting … More shows have been cut on something like the Premiere Pro or Resolve? What do you see happening in that regard and how does that affect the work of an assistant editor?

 

Erin Deck:

I’ve done a feature on Premiere and I’ve done a TV series on Premiere and I didn’t like it.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

What series is it?

 

Erin Deck:

It was for Apple TV. One of their new shows it’s called Ghostly Writers, no Ghost Writer. I think it was a remake of an older kid show called Ghost Writer. And we cut it on Premiere. So I’m not … I didn’t mind because I map my keyboard so I can easily jump between Avid and Final Cut and Premiere. But I’m not a fan of Premiere Pro, I like Avid. At least I like the smoothness. I know it. I know how to use it. The problem with Premiere Pro that we had on the feature was it’s a much harder workflow for the assistant editors, especially when it comes to locking. It’s not as seamless as it is with Avid. There’s a lot more challenges that kind of come up. I don’t know about Final Cut Pro. I haven’t worked on that since 7 died.

 

Stephen Philipson:

I mean, I’ve gotten very used to Avid and I’ve loved using it. I mean, at the end of the day, they’re just tools. So I mean, I tried to adapt to whatever I’m working with, but I think, just to go back to our conversation earlier about sound, I wonder if something that I would find very useful that I keep thinking is going to happen is that some of the tools allow for more collaboration. Like if there’s a way that OCD could have worked in our timelines and if the sound could have gone more seamlessly back and forth between the two timelines, maybe that would have really helped our process there. I believe DaVinci Resolve, which I’ve never used, but I think it has more collaboration sort of tools that can allow VFX people and sound people to work in your timeline, which kind of freaks me out a little bit because I don’t want someone else working in my world.

 

Stephen Philipson:

But at the same time, I think that would have helped us like better integration between sound and picture. Because talking to the OCD people, they were building all these soundscapes of hundreds of tracks and they just have to sort of bounce them down to one track that we would just have to kind of try to wedge in where we needed and if there were any sync elements that got really complicated. So I would think, hopefully I know DaVinci Resolve from what I understand, they are moving more towards this, but more kind of tools to allow easier transfer of material between timelines. I don’t know if that’s anything that anyone in the industry is thinking about, but I feel like it would be very useful.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

I can’t see it moving away from Avid anytime soon though. I don’t know. I think part of it’s the producers and the vendors are just more comfortable with it. Because there’s a longer track record using them of reliability. And also the editors that are working on it are more familiar with it, which doesn’t say Premiere won’t potentially in five years or whatever, take a market share. But I think it’ll take a little while.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Yeah. And at the moment, I’m not aware of really anything that doesn’t cut on Avid really. Like everything is on Avid-

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Pretty much yeah.

 

Jay Prychidny:

-in terms of the present moment. That’s why I was surprised. Erin said she did a show on Premiere. Like I’ve never heard of a show editing on anything other than Avid.

 

Erin Deck:

So it was with Sinking Ship. And so they do live action kind of, but also animated. And I think in reality, so I think that that’s where Premiere was a bit more feasible for them. And that’s what they stuck with in this. The show was their first DGC big show. So they stuck with Premiere Pro because I think they used mostly in-house editors. And I was the only one who came from the DGC.

 

Sarah Taylor:

 

Okay. We have a question from Scott and he said, what are the differences between cutting Canadian TV and the bigger American shows?

 

Jay Prychidny:

My experience with American shows is the cut is often kind of viewed much more like a next draft kind of thing. The director’s cut. The experiences on American shows is there’s a lot more money to reshoot like Steve was talking about. That would never happen on a Canadian show. It’s not like, “Oh, we don’t like the set. Let’s reshoot it.” Like …

 

Stephen Philipson:

It’s like no second part to that sentence. “Oh well.”

 

Jay Prychidny:

I mean, Erin and I worked on Into the Badlands, which is still my just mind-boggling experience of the amount that things would be reshot. The thing that just personally appalled is they opened season three with like a … They wanted to do like a Game of Thrones style opening battle to open season three. And so they shot it for a week or whatever it was. And then the showrunner saw it and he was like, “Oh, this isn’t really from my perspective of any of our characters. Let’s just cut it.” And we did end up repurposing parts of it in later parts of the season at a later date. But for a while they had shot this huge battle scene with a hundreds of extras or whatever it was for a week. And then it’s like … let’s get rid of it. And like why are … What are you talking about. You’re not even going to like explore… like using it a different way or trying to get one of our characters into the scene or something to save this battle.

They’re just like “ahh cut it.” That would never happen in a Canadian show in a million years.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

And there wasn’t a season four either though. Was there?

 

Erin Deck:

No.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

No.

 

Jay Prychidny:

And all the American shows that I’ve worked on, there’s something like that. Where just money is being burned at an alarming rate, to me. And it’s not even my money. I’m still upset by that.

 

Sarah Taylor:

It’s the Canadian in you.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Exactly. I’m used to like, “No. Let’s just take a piece of this and sell them this. [crosstalk 01:28:12] We can text you guys everything and then you’ll love it. And they’re like “Throw it out.”

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

I think the schedules are definitely longer too in American TV.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Yeah.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Yeah. Like-

 

Stephen Philipson:

Working on a slightly lower budget American show or I just finished … I mean, I love the show. It’s a great show. It’s called the Bold Type on Freeform. But I’m finding it more like we’re not throwing stuff out. But it’s sticking to a very tight schedule, but … Maybe because it’s a Network show, I don’t know. I mean the nice-

 

Jay Prychidny:

It’s an American-Canadian show?

 

Stephen Philipson:

It is shot in Canada. But, no, I think because it’s for … It’s like a network show and I think maybe just the funding is different. I mean, I don’t think it gets the big audience that a show like Altered Carbon would. And so it has more of that Canadian sort of mentality of like, okay, we just have only these pieces, how are we going to put them together? Which I kind of enjoy in a sense. It’s like trying to make … Whenever you have something where you don’t have the pieces, inevitably you come up with some great solution because you’re really trying to make these pieces work. And so you sort of come up with stuff you might not have otherwise, which I enjoy.

 

Stephen Philipson:

I really, from starting out in indie features in Canada, that was really … I mean, that’s what you do. Trying to make something out of nothing, which I think serves, you well. Or it’s served me well in my editing career. Because you’re always kind of trying to see how you can make things better than what they are. But yeah, it was nice on Altered Carbon. And where you got all the bells and whistles and we had time to work through everything. And so when we finally locked picture, I sort of felt like we really had the time to really try every different possibility and make sure we had the best possible product that we had, which is great. I mean, that’s a real luxury for sure.

 

Jay Prychidny:

You know, from the beginning of shooting to a director’s cut on like Orphan Black would be

two-and-a-half weeks to have your director’s cut. And on this showed to a director’s cut would have been what? Six weeks? Seven weeks?

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

It was like 20 days of shooting.

 

Jay Prychidny:

And then … Yeah. If you were the second and the block, you had even more time. So that’s four weeks for a shooting-

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Sorry [crosstalk 00:01:30:17].

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

– and the five weeks to your editors cut. Maybe you’re sitting around for a week. So it could be seven weeks or more to get to a director’s cut on this show. As opposed to two-and-a-half, I know from black.

 

Stephen Philipson:

I mean there’s times obviously where we were very rushed, if there was sort of a timely factor, visual effects factor or whatever, something we had to deal with. But at the end of the day, I think we really had the time to really work through everything properly, which was great.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

An even just keeping me on until the end. I know there’s things. I’m so glad we kind of figured this out. Because the dust settled and she had time to kind of marinate on it and come up with a new idea.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Is that a normal thing that happens where there’s one person that’s left?

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

I think apparently on like bigger sort of Cable shows like this [inaudible 01:31:04] affects every shows. I’ve been told at least it’s more common. And then definitely on studio features, the editor stays on. Remember when I found that out, when I met Julian Clark after District 9 and we were at a party and I was like, “Whoa. Whoa. You, they paid you to go to the mix? You stayed on to the mix?” He was like, “Yeah.” Like “What/” Yeah. So-

 

Stephen Philipson:

Oh my God. And American Gods, season one was cut in the US. And so with American editors. So I talked to Dieter, I’m like, he’s like, “When are you available for 10 Days in the Valley?” I’m like, “Well the picture locks on March 21” or whatever it was. “So I could start March 22nd.” And then when March 22nd came around, all the other editors on the show, they were like done. But they’re like, “Okay, we’re on the show for another month.” So they’d come in every day for a couple hours and just drink wine because they kept them on. They got an effects shot or whatever. They could cut it in, but really they were just doing nothing for like months. I was like, okay. I wasn’t expecting that. And people… the producer said to me…Yeah, exactly. She’s like, “Oh, you want to leave early?” I’m like, “No.”

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

[Laughing] You want to leave early! Stephen Philipson:

 

Anyways. I think they see it as in Canada, you got a bit of a bump from an equipment rental, which they don’t get in the US. From what I understand, they see a couple of extra weeks at the end of the show as like a little sort of pay bump. Because oftentimes the rates don’t … In TV the rate is what it is, but they’ll give you a few extra weeks at the end.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Oh, I see.

 

Stephen Philipson:

As a way of, just bumping up your pay a little bit.

 

Audience Question:

Thanks for doing this guys. It’s really good. I was just wondering if you could expand a bit more on what the notes were like coming from Netflix. And if they sort of evolved over time. Like if they were fewer or greater.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Netflix loved this show. They were so happy all the time, pretty much. For me, I don’t know. That was my experience.

 

Erin Deck:

I think for me, if I can remember, right, Netflix actually was very reasonable. I mean, they had some things that they would stick to, but I think they really let Alison guide the ship and really took kind of note from her. And I don’t know what happened between them and calls, but they would send, I think … What did they get? Three kicks at the can? Netflix. They got three rounds. Is that right?

 

Jay Prychidny:

I don’t know [crosstalk 01:33:30]

 

Stephen Philipson:

Thanks. So I have to believe it or not. I actually have a folder here on my computer for the show. And I have two text documents with notes or week apart.

 

Erin Deck:

Oh, nice. That’s amazing.

 

Sarah Taylor:

And what were the notes?

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

And there’s not a lot of notes actually. Some are the typical like, “Can we have the sound effect be a bit sharper?” Like, “Yes.”

 

Jay Prychidny:

 

The more challenging part on the show is definitely pleasing the show producers. Definitely.

 

Stephen Philipson:

I got to meet a lot of the people from Netflix. Because I went to the mix in Los Angeles because I happened to be in LA at the time. And they were very excited about the show. And it was … I mean, at the mix, they didn’t have a lot to say, but I really felt like they were backing Alison and her vision. They were excited about it. And they’re very encouraging, which was cool. I know I’m on episode one, the “pilot,” I dealt a lot with Skydance. I had a lot of back and forth with them. They had a lot of notes before it went to Netflix. And so there was quite a bit of back and forth with Skydance. Because I think they wanted, I don’t … I mean, I don’t know if they were trying to sell Netflix on it. Probably not, but I mean, they really wanted it to sort of have their stamp, which was cool. I thought we ended up in a good place, but yeah, for me it was Skydance. They were the people who were more note heavy.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

I’m just looking at that, my last episode, the finale. And yeah, there’s not a lot of notes either to answer your question. I would say it’s probably about the same as two or three of the … Between my two episodes, at least the notes … There wasn’t a lot, but the volume didn’t really change much.

 

Sarah Taylor:

One more question from me. What are you working on now or what’s coming out soon for, for you?

 

Erin Deck:

I’m doing actually from about two weeks after finishing Altered Carbon, I started on another Netflix show. A drama. Well, a mother-daughter comedy drama. And I’m still on it. Yeah. And I think they’re hoping –called “Ginny and Georgia.” And I think they’re hoping for it to come out September, October. But yeah, no, I’ve been on that for almost nine months now.

 

Stephen Philipson:

I went back to a show that I did right before Altered Carbon called the Bold Type, which is on Freeform, which is very sadly, it’s not easily accessible in Canada. I think it’s on ABC Spark, but it’s a very, very different show than an Altered Carbon. It’s-

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

Way more sex. Way more violent. [laughter]

 

Stephen Philipson:

But. Yeah, no, it’s a dialogue driven character based show about three young women. And it’s … I mean, there’s no effects, no fight scenes, which I kind of miss. But what I love about the show is it really is all about just the relationship between these characters and their friendship and their foibles and their ups and downs. And you just really get to love the characters, which is what I love about working on the show. It’s funny. Basically there’s no sort of all the things we usually like to do as editors like figure out pace or use a wide shot and then use a close-up to suggest this feeling or whatever. Like that’s all out the window. They just care about the dialogue. I mean, I could be on a shot of nothing as long as the dialogue was right. So it’s a very different show from that standpoint, but it’s exciting to sort of use a different muscle. And again, I really love the characters. So, yeah. Look out for it.

 

Jay Prychidny:

Most of my life is consumed by the show Snowpiercer. Doing season one and now I’m doing season two and it’s been such a difficult show and so long. I did Snowpiercer forever and then I did Altered Carbon for two months. Just two episodes, two months. Then I did another show even faster after Altered carbon, The Alien sequel, which is like, less than two months, I did two episodes in and out. And then back on Snowpiercer right. And it takes forever …I’m going crazy. But-

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

You’re stuck on that train, Jay.

 

Erin Deck:

He just keeps going around and around.

 

Jay Prychidny:

[crosstalk 01:37:43] The Apocalyptic Wasteland. It’s all too close to life. But season one is coming out on Netflix next month. So please check it out. Because I have put so much of my life into this. And I wanted it to be worth something.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Everybody watch it.

 

Geoff Ashenhurst:

I managed to squeak in, with some difficulty and some long hours of low budget. Drama, a feature called Jasmine Road that was shot in Alberta. It’s about a Syrian refugee family that kind of ends up in cowboy country in Southern Alberta. So that was really fun. It’s just like a change of pace. It’s like a realist social drama and yeah. That was a really fun experience. But now I’m on a Sci-Fi show season one called Silver. That’s the working title I’m working on the producers cut for episode three of eight, no nine, I think.

Nine episodes. It films in Budapest and yeah. Who knows when we’ll get back to that, but I’ll probably be working for another three weeks or something.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Well, thank you, Jay and Erin and Steve and Geoff for joining us tonight. It was really fun to learn about all of the workings of Altered Carbon and your careers and your processes. I enjoyed it. It looks like the audience enjoyed it. Everybody is saying thank you. Thank you. Great Q&A. Yes. Thank you. And thank you everybody for joining us. Thank you so much.

 

Erin Deck: Thanks, Guys.

Jay Prychidny: Thank you.

Stephen Philipson: Take care, everyone.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Bye.

 

Stephen Philipson:

Bye.

 

Erin Deck:

Bye.

 

Sarah Taylor:

Thank you so much for joining us today. And a big thanks goes to our panelists and all the people that joined us live online. A special thanks goes to Jane MacRae. The main title sound design was created by Jane Tattersall. Additional ADR recording by Andrea Rusch. Original music provided by Chad Blain. This episode was mixed and mastered by Tony Bao. The CCE has been supporting Indspire – an organization that provides funding and scholarships to 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.

 

[Outtro]

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

A special thanks goes to the following people for helping to create EditCon 2020

Jane MacRae

Maureen Grant

Blackmagic Design

the CCE board

Animé, produit et monté par

Sarah Taylor

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Musique originale par

Chad Blain

Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 038: The Holidays with Ryan Kovak

The Editors Cut Episode 038 Holiday Movies with Ryan Kovak

Episode 38: Holiday Movies with Ryan Kovak

In today's episode Sarah Taylor chats with Ryan Kovak

Ryan is an editor based in Toronto who at this point in his career has assisted or edited 20 holiday movies! They discuss his latest holiday movie The Christmas Setup which is Lifetime’s first-ever LGBTQ+ Christmas movie.

À écouter ici !

The Editor’s Cut – Episode 038 – Holiday Movies

Sarah Taylor [00:00:00]

This episode was generously sponsored by Annex Pro, and Avid.

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 as 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 I’m sitting down with Ryan Kovack, an editor based in Toronto Canada, who at

this point in his career has worked on over 20 holiday movies. I know for myself I very

much enjoy the holiday movie season. I can’t wait to learn more about the post behind

this genre.

[show open]

Sarah Taylor

Well Ryan thank you so much for joining me today.

Ryan Kovack

Like I said thanks for caring about something I have to say. It says it’s a thrill. Thank

you.

Sarah Taylor

First off how about you tell us a little bit about yourself. Where are you from and what

led you to a career of editing. Kinda funny.

Ryan Kovack

I am born and raised in St. Clair beach Ontario which is suburban Windsor so the Deep

South went to the University of Windsor and towards the end of my degree I got a job

at the radio stations there. So I worked in radio for about two years after kind of prior to

and after graduating university. Then at one point I heard a couple of on air

personalities who were just a year or two older than I was, saying how they couldn’t

afford to move out of their parents house yet. So I decided that maybe I’ll go get into —

my first love I guess was TV and film so I thought, move up to try and I’ll see what I can

find. So I had worked on an independent short in Windsor as a sound recordist and I

thought that was with my radio background I thought that was the logical way to go

but I also enjoyed the editing aspect when I was in school. I got up here, got in touch

with another guy from that short – they were all based in Toronto. Ended up doing one

day as a daily boom up on another slightly larger but still very much low budget short.

Basically I spent the day for about 100 dollars trying not to freeze to death because I

was not prepared for the weather and decided then and there that, yeah editing

sounds much more fun. The weather is always better. The only snow is on screen.

Same with rain. Generally the hours can be a little bit more stable. So I thought that

was the way to go and you know basically I got I started my career in the industry at

Epitome Pictures working on answering the phones for Degrassi when they first started

up. Not to date myself. And from there after Season 1, I was able to with some

encouragement and help from the post supervisor and the assistant editor there get

into post-production work where I was doing more post-production P.A. / coordinator

ADR as-produced transcripts that sort of thing. Did that for a few years, and the

assistant picture editor left Degrassi, called me up a few months later and said “hey I

need somebody.”

Ryan Kovack [00:03:59]

And that was kind of you know — needed an extras extra set of hands on a big series.

So I came in as a trainee on that, and started assisting from there and then eventually

worked my way up into editing over the last few years. So a slow journey.

Sarah Taylor [00:04:15]

But exciting that you basically got to kind of learn on the job like you went to school

and you have a background in radio and doing radio stuff which is similar but that you

got to get into it by being in the right place at the right time.

Ryan Kovack [00:04:29]

I know Linda and Stephen and the team that were running Epitome Pictures for

Degrassi. They’ve been instrumental in getting a lot of talent out into the into the

creative world and you know I’m kind of a minor blip on that compared to some of the

others that have come out but they were good to me and you know I’ll always be

grateful for that and and the assistant editor Mark Arcieri who is working there he’s the

guy who got me out. He’s the guy who I was assisting for a long long time.

Sarah Taylor [00:05:03]

I actually watched one of the films that you assisted and he cut the other day. The Best

Christmas Party Ever.

Ryan Kovack [00:05:10]

Oh boy yes. Yeah that’s right. Yeah I vaguely remember that one –one of many. Yes.

Sarah Taylor [00:05:18]

Well that is one of the reasons I wanted to chat with you today – is because you have

cut many holiday films. I want to say I counted 16 that you either assisted or edited.

Ryan Kovack [00:05:28]

That’s that’s probably just the visible this is probably closer to 20 than I’ve. Yeah I think

I’m up to eight or nine as an editor and in probably more way more than that as an

assistant.

Sarah Taylor [00:05:40]

Amazing. For me and I’m sure many other people I know a lot of my friends and family

we definitely look forward to the holiday movie season. For me it starts on November

1st on W and so I PVR all of the movies and then every night me and my daughter sit

down and we watch a Christmas movie. We love it. How do you feel knowing that

you’re working on films that bring a lot of joy to people?

Ryan Kovack [00:06:07]

When I think I can’t take anymore green and red and romance. It helps. You know you

get so many of them. And that after a while it it’s it’s it’s you know too much of a good

thing

Sarah Taylor

That’s too sweet.

Ryan Kovack [00:06:25]

Yeah yeah. And I know in you know you sit back and you go. I can’t do this again. Not

another one. Well at least people are happy at least it makes people happy. I’m glad

that’s you know — if it makes people happy, that’s good for me. You know that’s all I

can say.

Sarah Taylor [00:06:45]

Well as you mentioned before you said you assisted on many movies and then you did

make the transition to editing. So how did you make that track that journey from

assisting to editing?

Ryan Kovack [00:06:56]

Slowly. There was so like I said it was working with Mark Arcieri, assisting on a lot of

his stuff. We were working for mostly the same company, Chester Perlmutter, and they

just got busy one year and said let’s throw the kid a bone. I mean I was no kid by point

but compared to you know I’ve had no real editing experience– a few shorts that

nobody’s ever seen as far as I know. So they let me try my hand at one. As far as I

know it’s still relatively well-liked but it was a while before I got to do another one. So I

was mainly a financial consideration: being a steady working assistant is better

financially than being an occasional editor. And I wasn’t able to go back and forth as

much as I would’ve liked. Then eventually, I guess it was three or three years or so

later, the same company came to me and said we need Mark’s not available, he’s off

doing bigger better things now. And they gave me another shot and I said ok and

hopped right in and I think it was another brief series that I assisted on after that. But

then it was Marc Gingras, another guy over at Urban post terrific sound editor. He got

me in touch with another company who was looking for somebody and you know I got

through all of the screening and undercut the other other people, I’ll work for scale,

sure. And they brought me along and you know it’s been kind of – not looked back

from there was just sort of gradual…Eventually the foot was in the door far enough that

they couldn’t close it.

Sarah Taylor [00:08:47]

You’re in.

Ryan Kovack

I’m in. Yeah. So like I say there was a long time between the first and the second. Not

so much time. just a few months, probably about half a year between the second and

the third and then then the avalanche started. You know I’ve been working fairly

steadily. Plague exception. But yeah I’ve been quite lucky and quite fortunate to be

working steadily relatively for the last couple of years.

Sarah Taylor [00:09:19]

What was the name of the first film that you had. First holiday film?

Ryan Kovack [00:09:22]

The first film was The Christmas Share. Yes. So yeah Christmas Share was very much

like I believe The Holiday. A city guy and country guy switch…

Sarah Taylor [00:09:36]

I feel like maybe I’ve seen it.

Ryan Kovack [00:09:38]

It was lovely musical number there was a country singer that was playing one of the

lead the male leads and he was quite good singing. They did a nice rendition of Joy to

the World possibly? I can’t remember now but yes that was that was the first one way

back when.

Sarah Taylor

A good first one to be on because they’ll probably there was probably a fan base of the

country singer right. So that’s like a real good good foot in the door for that. That’s

great.

Ryan Kovack [00:10:11]

Yeah. It was also really helpful to add that a lot of these I find are very A-story centric.

There’s no real B story this had really two A stories. You had two couples, so it was a

little bit easier on me as far as being able to go back and forth and not have to worry

about the “well we just ended a scene with these two people. Now we’re starting to

see these..” which can be a problem sometimes.

Sarah Taylor [00:10:39]

Sure. Well that takes us to my next question is…Talk me through the process of your

typical process of working on a holiday film like when do you come on board, kind of

walk me through that, how much time you get.

Ryan Kovack [00:10:55]

Never enough…Usually it’s varied but usually it’s a week or two before they go to

camera they’ll have … we’ll get the final stamp of approval. A lot of times they need

network approval and of course the director and producers you know the Canadian

producer may not be the….the people staffing it that the American creative producer

will be the one who has to finally come in and say Yeah he’s good enough or he’s great

or whatever they have to say. And so that’s usually…I come on about a week before I

read the script, go through you know kind of get a feel for if there’s any sort of central

theme, who the main character is — not just as far as oh it’s obviously person A, like

who they are as a as a character.

At that point I’ll talk to the producer and the director and see what their feeling is how

they want to go with it. Yeah. And then it’s just a matter of once the footage starts

rolling in and of course there’s always the technical talk where I sit on the phone call

and listen while the assistant and post supervisor talks to the DIT and whoever else,

sound guy and camera people in wherever they’re shooting and hope it’s whatever

they come up with is this good. You know basically wait for the footage to roll in. And

then I start trying to make every scene as good as I can. Some directors depending on

how much time they have like to see things as they’re assembled which is helpful

sometimes but can slow you down a little bit. But if they do, I’ll send them a scene or

two every couple of days some of the bigger ones see how they feel. Make sure we’re

on the same page and staying on the same page. And yeah eventually, gets to the part

that I feel is usually lacking most in the schedules the editor cut is mostly just an

assembly at this stage it’s throw the scenes together in order figure where you know

you’re …any temp score any whatever you can do to make the transitions between

scenes and or acts as good as they can. Then directors cut will vary as well as far as

duration depending on how much time you have. Producer cut, network cut and then

knock on wood it locks with a happy network.

Sarah Taylor [00:13:23]

Excellent. So all in all pretty pretty quick turnaround.

Ryan Kovack [00:13:28]

Yeah. I believe the last one was about seven weeks I believe. The one before I did

earlier this year pre-pandemic was I think closer to eight weeks. We had a bit more

time as it was you know April when we locked as opposed to November.

Ryan Kovack [00:13:48]

So that helped. But yeah generally it’s seven to eight weeks is usually what when I get

as far as you know from day one of footage to lock picture.

Sarah Taylor [00:14:00]

How many do you normally cut in a year.

Ryan Kovack [00:14:02]

This year was was like I said pandemic. I was expecting to get two…I was lucky to get

the one early in the year in April. So three or four year would probably be a good a

good number as far as being able to afford the rent and and you know walk the line

between affording the rent and going Christmas crazy.

Sarah Taylor [00:14:23]

Yeah. I balance it out like Christmas and then maybe you like a Halloween movie.. So

you kind of touched on it saying that often these films are just a story heavy so

transitions can be challenging. What other sort of editing challenges do you come

across working on this genre?

Ryan Kovack [00:14:45]

I’m not the only one who pressed for time as far as you know all of these could you. All

of the directors will –every director wants more time. But I feel that sometimes they are

shortchanged on the shoot as well just they could use an extra day to make sure that

you know the big scenes are covered properly. As far as what they want to accomplish

and sometimes too some of the sets can be a little lackluster because again there’s

just not enough time. The A story centric problem can be a bit much sometimes. You

know there’s all the usual complaints that every editor has. I also find the networks can

be demanding sometimes even though they may not be getting what they want

because you know editors are the last line that they have a chance to just to yell at. Not

yell at, but you know what I mean, we’re the last people that they have any interaction

with or any say in the process. They tend to be – some of them can be quite trying. I

found the last few actually been much better, they’ve been getting better but I’ve had

experiences in the past where there are questions about the script and the story that

were in the script from the start and somehow it’s my fault.

Sarah Taylor [00:16:14]

Like that’s the footage I got.

Ryan Kovack [00:16:15]

Yeah you know I can’t make….I didn’t write it. I didn’t direct it. You know I didn’t direct

what they wrote. You guys approved your scripts. Like I say the last few you have been

much much better as far as the network goes. They’ve been very smooth as far as that

goes.

Sarah Taylor [00:16:37]

Are you often working with the same crew like the same directors coming through or

the same producers like how does that work for you?

Ryan Kovack [00:16:43]

No. The directors have usually been I think I’ve only…I don’t think I’ve actually worked

with the same director personally as an editor twice. Yeah sometimes it’s with the crew

generally depends where it shoots in the last few couple have been up in Ottawa and

I’ve got a lot of the same people on those. There’s a few quite a few that have been in

Hamilton especially back when I was assisting and that was you know that was a case

where they almost shot it they’d shoot three or four in a row and they would almost run

it as a TV series as opposed to four separate movies so you would have crew

overlapping as much as they could. You know some consistency and some burnout

too because I mean four of these in a row for for them was challenge

Sarah Taylor

but what are the shoot days usually on one of these films.

Ryan Kovack [00:17:42]

Usually it’s a Monday to Friday sometimes but it’s always gets to a point where we

start calls time to get pushed later and later as they should they shoot in the nighttime

so sometimes they’ll start at 7 a.m. on a Monday but by the time they get to Friday

they’re starting at 2 or 4 clock in the afternoon and I mean it doesn’t affect me too

much except if there’s a problem and I can’t find anybody at 9 o’clock when I’m

starting to fix the…where’s my footage?

Sarah Taylor [00:18:12]

They’re sleeping. Yeah. So tell us about the Christmas setup which is the film that you

just wrapped on. I believe that it’s the first holiday movie one of the first Hollywood

movies where the main care couple is gay which I think is great.

Ryan Kovack [00:18:27]

Yes as far as I know as far as the the big “we are all in on Christmas movie” networks

go, which is basically Hallmark lifetime and there’s probably another one that I’m

forgetting. As far as I know it is the first that they are doing. So that’s kind of exciting

new territory – long overdue territory I feel. I’ve been doing these a long time and I find

that most of the time the couples would look like you and I two very boring, no offense,

white people. You know a blonde lady and a dark haired guy in a green sweater and a

red sweater. And yeah so it’s been a long time coming and you know I mean aside

from the two of them both being men it’s a holiday romantic comedy. It’s the same as

all the others it’s which I think also is a great thing. They’re just two guys in love and

that’s all it is.

Sarah Taylor

When you’re cutting the film too it just was like everything kind of and when as it as it

went and it was a normal process on your side because it is the first I know there’s

going to be a lot more eyes on it and I know there’s already people that hate it on

principle which is ridiculous to me. But yeah I put that extra pressure out of my head

and just I treated The Christmas Set Up the same way I treated Christmas Unwrapped

in the spring. Two people falling in love at Christmas.

With extra snow and sugar.

Ryan Kovack [00:20:04]

Yes. So that’s you know that’s the way it is. That’s the way it should be I think.

Sarah Taylor [00:20:08]

Yeah. Yeah. Do you have any story stories you want to talk about about working on

The Christmas Setup?

Ryan Kovack [00:20:13]

I’m sure the publicity is out that Ben and Blake the two leads are actually married in

real life.

Sarah Taylor

Oh I didn’t know that that’s great.

Ryan Kovack [00:20:22]

Yeah, which worried me when I heard it. Because sometimes real life chemistry does

not translate to the screen. They both knocked it out of the park. Performances are

fantastic. And yeah. So I mean that was great. They were fun to watch between action

and cut but they were also fun to watch before action and after that the pre and post

roll. And another thing too unrelated to the two main leads is are our big name was

Fran Drescher.

Ryan Kovack [00:20:58]

And I mean all I remember her from is her sitcom in the I want to say I’m going to say

90s — I think it was the 90s. And I also remember her from her role in This is Spinal

Tap. So I was kind of like OK how is she going to be, and again another you know

she’s still a fantastic comedic actress. And surprisingly to me who only knows her from

those two things, a fantastic dramatic actress. So that the cast made it so much easier

to make a good movie. So between the cast and the director Pat and another guy did a

fantastic job. It was just an all around pleasant experience.

Sarah Taylor [00:21:45]

That’s fantastic. And we think in mid December. I’m not sure when it’s coming to

Canada but…

Ryan Kovack [00:21:48]

I’m going to say I’m 90 percent sure that it is the 12th of December on Lifetime in the

US. And as I check my email quickly to see if anybody got back to me with the

Canadian dates and I don’t think anybody did.

Sarah Taylor [00:22:09]

If I find out before this is released I will put it in the show notes. So check the show

notes if to find out the date of when it might air in Canada.

Ryan Kovack [00:22:22]

I will try and email a few more people and get you some information for you if I can.

Sarah Taylor [00:22:28]

It’s definitely something that I’m going to put on my list to watch this season and I’m

very excited and I was very excited to find out that this was happening and that there

was a Canadian cutting this film which is really great. Do you typically like watching

Christmas movies. And if so–

Ryan Kovack [00:22:40]

No.

[laughter]

Ryan Kovack [00:22:45]

If there’s any producers out there listening who want me to do something it isn’t

Christmas. I’m more than happy to.

Sarah Taylor [00:22:52]

And he’s more than capable! He doesn’t have to just do Christmas.

Ryan Kovack [00:22:56]

That’s right. Yes. Si vous souhaitez commanditer une réception pour un festival de films, un événement social, une célébration de la fierté ou un atelier dans votre région, contactez-nous mean it is not my genre of choice.

Sarah Taylor [00:23:00]

Do you have a Christmas movie that’s a fave from like maybe when you were a kid.

Ryan Kovack

I always lean back on the classics. You know Christmas Vacation is up there. And of

course there’s always the debate about whether Die Hard is a Christmas movie or a

movie that happens at Christmas.

Sarah Taylor [00:23:17]

Well my husband argues that it is a Christmas movie and we watch it every year. So he

has to endure the cheesy ones that I watch so we Die Hard. Can you say which one of

these films might have been your favorite to work on?

Ryan Kovack [00:23:30]

I’m going to say The Christmas Setup in part of that might just be that it is the most

recent. But like I say, everybody pillar to post with it–if you’ll excuse the post pun. But

yeah like I say that the cast was fantastic to see every day on my screen or on my

monitors. Pat (the director) Mills was a great guy to work with. We were on the same

page. And Danielle, the producer was also on the same page with Pat which put her on

the same page as me. So you know the three weeks three of three or four weeks I

spent locked in a room with one or both of them was, it was just pleasant. You know

I’ve had experiences where I’ve not seen the producer at all and it’s just been good

luck and that’s it. And then not been a good experience but this overall has been just a

fun experience dealing with all people I hadn’t known before which is always

nerve-wracking and coming in and having a good time with working with them has

been great.

Sarah Taylor [00:24:39]

Are you looking forward to hearing feedback from people watching this film?

Ryan Kovack [00:24:44]

Actually, yes I am. Usually it’s it’s you know I’ll check the you know rotten tomatoes

where I am DP score and see 6.5…That’s about right. That’s you know that’s that’s

where they all kind of yeah..

So I’m actually, I think story wise it’s probably one of the best that I’ve worked on so

I’m happy about that. And so yeah I’m kind of looking forward to hearing what people

who actually don’t hate it on principle, of course, what people think about it.

And I you know I just hope that I’ve served the story I’ve served the actors I’ve served

the director and I’ve served the community in general well. I mean I’m an outsider to it

so I’m hoping that they can forgive me my faults and I’ve done a good job that they are

happy with.

Sarah Taylor [00:25:38]

That’s fantastic. Well I’m excited to see it as I mentioned before and I’ll definitely let

you know what I think.

Ryan Kovack [00:25:44]

Thank you.

Sarah Taylor [00:25:47]

I’m sure I’ll love it. All things aside what would you like to cut in the future. What would

be something that you just love to do.

Ryan Kovack [00:25:52]

I think anything that I would watch so I’m a sucker for your cheesy procedural crime

procedural type things. And some of the sci fi type stuff that’s that’s out there too

would be a lot of fun too to work on.

So knock on wood or whatever this coffee table’s made of and hopefully I can get you

know something in the future but in the meantime I’m making people happy with

Christmas movies so be it.

Sarah Taylor [00:26:22]

Well thank you for bringing joy to my life. With your Christmas movie editing and we’ll

put the word out to all the sci-fi producers out there who might be listening to Ryan’s

available but he has to do a few Christmas movies so that he can appease my

Christmas routine.

Ryan Kovack [00:26:38]

Fair enough. Fair enough.

Sarah Taylor [00:26:40]

Well thank you so much for taking time to chat with me today and I look forward to

watching The Christmas Setup.

Ryan Kovack [00:26:47]

It’s been a pleasure and I hope you, as an editor who’s going to fix this and make me

sound coherent, I appreciate that.

Sarah Taylor [00:26:55]

Not a problem here.

Thank you so much for joining us today. And a big thanks goes to Ryan for taking the

time to sit with me. I hope you all enjoy The Christmas Setup.

A special thanks goes to Jane MacRae, Stephen Philipson, and Heather Taylor. The

main title sound design was created by Jane Tattersall. Additional ADR recording by

Andrea Rusch. Original music provided 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 to 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.

[Outtro]

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

What do you want to hear on The Editor's Cut?

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

A special thanks

Jane MacRae

Stephen Philipson

Heather Taylor

Animé, produit et monté par

Sarah Taylor

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Design sonore du générique d'ouverture

Jane Tattersall

ADR Recording by

Andrea Rusch

Musique originale par

Chad Blain

Soundstripe

Sponsor Narration by

Paul Winestock

Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 035: Behind the Cut with Susan Shipton

The Editors Cut - Episode 035: Behind the Cut with Susan Shipton

The Editors Cut - Episode 035: Behind the Cut with Susan Shipton

This episode is part 4 of a 4 part series covering EditCon 2020 that took place on Saturday February 1st, 2020 at the TIFF Bell Lightbox in Toronto.

This episode is sponsored by Annex Pro and Avid.

2020 EditCon Panel 4 no script no problem on stage at TIFF

Multi-award-winning editor Susan Shipton shares her vast knowledge and experience from a long career in film and network television. Susan has over 40 feature films to her credit.

She has cut eight films with director Atom Egoyan (including Oscar-nominated The Sweet Hereafter), as well as many critically-acclaimed television series such as The Book of Negroes, et The Expanse.

À écouter ici !

The Editor’s Cut – Episode 035 – Interview with Susan Shipton (EditCon 2020 Series)



Sarah Taylor:

This episode was generously sponsored by Annex Pro and Avid. Hello and welcome to The Editor’s Cut. I’m your host, Sarah Taylor. We’d 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 I bring to you part four of our four-part series covering EditCon that took place on Saturday, February 1st, 2020 at the TIFF Bell Lightbox in Toronto, behind the cut with Susan Shipton. Multi award winning editor, Susan Shipton will share her vast knowledge and experience from her long career in film and network television. Susan has over 40 feature films to her credit. She has cut eight films with director Atom Egoyan, including Oscar nominated The Sweet Hereafter as well as many critically acclaimed television series, such as The Book of Negroes and The Expanse.

 

[show open]

 

Just a warning that some of the clips played in this episode contain coarse language and sexual content

Stephen Philipson:

So, it is my great pleasure to introduce our very esteemed keynote speaker. She’s the multiple DGC award and Genie award winning editor behind many iconic Canadian films working in a range of tones and styles from art house cinema to historical drama, comedy and science fiction. Her films have been widely recognized around the world at film festivals and by little award shows such as the Oscars. Most notably, she’s collaborated with Atom Egoyan on all his films from The Adjuster , to his latest Guest of Honour, including the Oscar nominated and Cannes Jury prize winning, The Sweet Hereafter. She’s also worked with other world renowned directors, such as Robert Lepage on Possible Worlds and István Szabó on Being Julia, winning a Genie award and a DGC award for those films, but it doesn’t stop there. Her work continues on the small screen with Clement Virgo’s, critically acclaimed Book of Negroes, Nurses and Burden of Truth, The Expanse and the new Netflix series, Ginny & Georgia. Of course, I’m talking about Susan Shipton. Our moderator, Sarah Taylor, is the host of The Editor’s Cut. The CCE podcast, now making waves internationally. Yes, we have listeners from around the world. She’s an award-winning editor with 18 years of experience in documentary and narrative films. Most recently, she edited the short documentary Fast Horse, which screened at over 15 festivals and won a Special Jury Award for directing at the 2019 Sundance Film Festival. Annex Pro and Avid are very excited to welcome-

Pauline Decroix:

Sarah Taylor.

Stephen Philipson:

And Susan Shipton.

Sarah Taylor:

Hello everyone. What a great day. I’ve been taking lots of notes today and I’m going to take them back to my suite. So thank you for that. And thank you for coming and Susan, thank you for joining me on stage. We have a lot to discuss, so I want to start just briefly, you went to Queen’s University and you took film studies and graduated in 1992, which means you’ve been in the industry for over 30 years.

Susan Shipton:

I graduated in 1982.

Sarah Taylor:

  1. I wrote 92, okay 82. Well, you’ve been in the industry for a while. No, no, 1992, but I’m assuming you have a lot of great stories to tell us. And I don’t know the full story, but please tell us about your first job in the film industry.

Susan Shipton:

Well, I did graduate from Queen’s University and by the way, thank you for that beautiful introduction. That was really lovely. Thank you. And I had made a couple of short films at Queen’s as one did and really enjoyed the editing process, but my goal was actually to write and direct. But I really loved editing, and I really loved what I learned about filmmaking from editing. And it was always in the back of my head that you have to be in a cutting room to really learn what it is to be a filmmaker. So I came to Toronto with all my film school experience and landed my first job slinging burgers at Toby’s Bar and Grill on Yonge street. It was a chain at the time, long gone. And in the meantime, I had a friend who went to the same high school as I did, who was a few years ahead of me who was working in the industry.

Susan Shipton:

And when I was back in Belleville, where I was living with my parents, he said, when you come to Toronto, I’m working in the business. So give me a call and I’ll see what I can do. And so I did, and he was working on a show and he said, I don’t know if I have anything, but you know. And I was literally in the middle of an afternoon lunch shift at Toby’s with burgers in both hands. And the phone rang at Toby’s. This was pre-cell phone, somehow he had my work number, I guess that’s what you did. The phone rang at Toby’s. And he said, and I answered it, put my burgers down. And he said, I have a job for you if you want to come and get this job. And I said, Alan, I’m like in the middle of a lunch shift at Toby’s with burgers in my hands.

Susan Shipton:

I’ll drive down after my shift. And he said, the job may or may not be here for you if you do that. So I actually handed my burger plates off to the other aspiring filmmaker waiter who got it. He says, Susan, give those to me. I’ll never forget him. He said, give him to me, I’ll take your shift. So I went down to Lake Shore Studios to pursue my first job in film. And it was as a production assistant on a soft core porn television series. I really want to emphasize that I was a production assistant, even though my first job was in pornography. And it was a for Playboy First Choice. It was called Office Girls and all the clothes had to be made with Velcro in them so that they came off quickly. One of my best friends to this day, I met on that show and I had the contract for ages and maybe I’ll find it someday.

Susan Shipton:

Because it’s wonderful. It’s $225 a week contracted seven day week. It’s wonderful, in black and white, but I would have to, as a runner, I’d have to do everything including drive the bunnies around. But I had to drive the tapes because it was shot on tape down to Mag North, which was this editing facility, which is now a condo, a surprise in Toronto. And I would go, I would deliver them to the editor and I would, and they had jelly beans everywhere. Cause that was in the days when like tape editing was the coolest, and that’s where all the money was. So they had jelly beans and cookies and stuff. And I just thought this was glorious. I would deliver these tapes and I’d sit with him in the dark room as he cut this awful stuff. Anyway, life went on after that, but that was my start.

Sarah Taylor:

So the snacks enticed you to get into the editing room?

Susan Shipton:

Large part of it.

Susan Shipton:

My friends know there’s nothing I love more than free food, but it was also just that, what he was doing was really quite astonishing, even though the show was so awful, cause he, I would sit with him and he would show me what he was up against lots of this stuff that we’ve heard today. And he was a great editor and just the quiet, and that he was working by himself. So, yeah.

Sarah Taylor:

So then after you had that experience, you decided to pursue editing and you became an assistant.

Susan Shipton:

Yes. And that was through another crazy serendipitous Queen’s connection. Woman I knew at Queen’s was syncing rushes or dailies, which was an entry-level job into a cutting room in those days. And she had two jobs, and the shoot fell in such a way that she couldn’t do one of the syncing jobs and phoned me. And I went in and did it. And the editor was Roger Mattiussi, who’s remained a friend of mine to this day, and he kind of put me in touch to quickly just go there. I said to him; I don’t know anything. I can’t get into a cutting room cause I don’t have a skill and he said I’ll hire you. Which was lovely. And he did. He hired me on a CBC for the record where I met Sturla Gunnarsson. And then I got on a documentary as an assistant Jeff Warren and that Sturla Gunnarsson directed about the UAW, CAW, which was called Final Offer, which was an extraordinary experience because the thing about the film days is that you’re actually in the room with the editor.

Susan Shipton:

So like on all of those shows, because you’re just filing trims, you know? And so you’re in the room with the editor sometimes in another room, but often with the editor on Final Offer, we were all at the film board and we would, I’d be standing there filing trims or sitting at the desk with the writer and the director and the editor and very much a part of the conversations if I wanted to be. And they were very generous about that. That was a fantastic experience. And through them I met Patricia Rozema. Roger was friends with Elaine Foreman who was Ron Sanders’ first assistant at the time. And I said to Roger, I really want to cut feature films. And I want to work with the best people, who are those people. And Roger named them. And he said, but there were three men.

Susan Shipton:

And he said, but two of those men don’t hire women.

Sarah Taylor:

Interesting.

Susan Shipton:

I mean, it was amazing, and it was like, Roger just said it like as a statement of fact, right? Like it wasn’t really, and so one of the only one who hired women was Ron. And so I went to probably an introduction through Roger. I went to Ron’s cutting room and Roger had also told me, he said, he’s the only editor who’s doing pictures that are big enough, that’ll have an apprentice on them. And that’s how you’re going to have to start as an apprentice. And then just to say, how I got working with Ron was I went, I met him and that was like so amazing because it’s David Cronenberg’s cutting room and that great picture of Cronenberg strangling himself and he’s all blue.

Susan Shipton:

And it was just amazing. So, I said if you ever are hiring an apprentice, I would love to work with you. And then I get a call from his first assistant, Michael Ray they were between pictures. They said, Ron’s just got a picture called The Park Is Mine, which is with Tommy Lee Jones. Would you like to come on board as a second assistant editor? And I actually freaked out because I didn’t think I could do that. I’d applied to be an apprentice. And I was just sort of, Oh my God, I can’t do that. So I went back home to Belleville, and I said, I’ll think about it, the biggest opportunity. And I said, oh, I’ll have to think about it. So I went home and my parents and my dad said to me, you didn’t lie to get the job.

Susan Shipton:

You didn’t tell them anything that wasn’t true. They know your experienced they’re willing to take you on and do it. And so I did, and I ended up then doing The Fly with Ron as well as an assistant.

Sarah Taylor:

Wow.

Susan Shipton:

And another little movie, little MOW Ron and I did as well.

Sarah Taylor:

Was there anything from your experience working with Ron that you still like look to now and when you’re working?

Susan Shipton:

Yeah, absolutely. I think, I don’t know. In what way, I sort of took these things in, but I even know Ron is one of my heroes as an editor. I think his editing is beautiful. And I can’t even say specifically, but just watching him cut and watching and actually weirdly Ron’s own inarticulateness about what he does, what was taught me a lot, because it was all about feeling, it was like, why are you cutting there Ron? It feels right. You know, and that really is where a lot of it comes from. And he’s just been hugely helpful to me. I have called him a couple of times when I’m cutting things and said, yeah, Ron, would you mind having a look and he’s come in and looked and helped me over the years.

Sarah Taylor:

Wow. What a great connection.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah, it was.

Sarah Taylor:

Now, how did you get into your first opportunity from assisting to cut your first feature film?

Susan Shipton:

That was serendipity. Again, I had met Patricia Rozema at the National Film, but it’s all connected. It’s all these weird kinds of connections, right? I’d met Patricia we’d become friends. And I would go to her house for parties and Atom Egoyan would be there. And that’s how I met Atom. And one night at a party, I wore my coat backwards, and I thought it was hysterical. I thought it was like the funniest thing ever. And everyone started wearing their coats backwards. And I don’t recommend this, but people seem to remember me from that, Atom in particular.

Sarah Taylor:

Backwards coat lady.

Susan Shipton:

The backwards coat lady.

Susan Shipton:

It’s sort of like, I just think it put me in his mind somehow. But what happened with The Adjuster was he was looking for an editor. Oh no. I went up for another movie. I had quite a lot of experience by this time. I’d been an assistant for nine years and I’d assisted in foley and dialogues and effects and picture and I’d cut a short film and I went up for a film and didn’t get it. And the editor who got it, a man, was far less experienced than me. And he had to call me and ask me how to set up a cutting room and recognized when he was talking to me that he’d gotten the job from me. He was offered The Adjuster and he couldn’t do it. And he phoned me and told me Atom’s looking for an editor.

Sarah Taylor:

Nice.

Susan Shipton:

So it was kind of like, he felt bad. He didn’t realize that, that was a dynamic that had happened. And so there’s this weird, like theme of sexism that’s worked for and against me.

Sarah Taylor:

And then did Atom go, “Oh yeah, the lady with the backwards coat.”

Susan Shipton:

Yes, he did.

Sarah Taylor:

So you, you guys must’ve enjoyed your time working together. Cause you’ve cut all of his films.

Susan Shipton:

I was like the third editor, someone else was then offered The Adjuster and he didn’t take it because Atom wanted a co-edit and I was delighted because it was a big step for me. And I thought, “Hey, I get to edit. But I have the protection a bit.” I had no problem with it at all. So then when we started cutting it together, he acknowledged partway through the process we got on great. That what was actually happening was a more traditional director editor relationship. And he said to me, I’m just going to take an additional editing credit in the tails. You’re the editor. And so, yeah, that started a long relationship.

Sarah Taylor:

How has that relationship evolved over the years and maybe what is it about the two of you together that just works?

Susan Shipton:

You know, it’s almost a question for him in a way, but I guess what works for me is like, I’ve always found his films deeply moving and I’m aware that not everyone does with Atom’s films, right? There’s an intellectual kind of distance in some of the ways that he tells stories, but I’ve always been deeply moved by the characters also by the way of storytelling by his use of the camera. Like there are moments in his films that just take my breath away. So I think that I have a natural fit to those rhythms, but I’m also critical as well. So I think it’s comfortable for me. I mean, the relationship has evolved, but I think the big step was his, the very first film when he recognized that I was actually an editor.

Sarah Taylor:

He trusted you.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah. And I think that from then on, we’d been on, but his filmmaking and his relationship to storytelling in the edit has really evolved.

Sarah Taylor:

You’ve helped make that happen too.

Susan Shipton:

Well, he does say. The one compliment he does give me is, he says, he shoots coverage because of the way I cut it, because he doesn’t used to shoot coverage. He was just like, string masters together. So I like that he says that.

Sarah Taylor:

So you taught him something, that’s good.

Susan Shipton:

I taught him something. Yes.

Sarah Taylor:

Was there any films, like obviously The Sweet Hereafter is a Canadian classic and it, is there any of his films that hold a special spot for you?

Susan Shipton:

Felicia’s Journey. I mean, is my favourite Atom film. There are those moments in Felicia’s Journey that are to me so beautiful and so perfectly realized. I mean, I also it’s one of the more linear–I did not cut Remember, that was Chris Donaldson and that’s a more linear one, but Felicia’s was oddly more linear. It had its flashbacks were more conventional flashbacks versus the multi narrative, which, I’m not saying that’s why I like it better, but it was different in a way. Right? And I think the discipline of actually staying in a more forward moving narrative was interesting for me. And I just, I love Bob Hoskins performance. It’s an extraordinary film to me. I love it.

Sarah Taylor:

And have you recently watched it?

Susan Shipton:

Yes.

Susan Shipton:

I did, and it totally held up for me. And that doesn’t always happen when I watched, previous.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, for sure.

Susan Shipton:

Older films. Yeah.

Sarah Taylor:

Well, I think we should get into the details of your editing process. So we have a few clips that we’re going to show today. Two of them are from feature films and then one television clip. And the first clip is from Burn Your Maps directed by Jordan Roberts. Do you want to set it up for us?

Susan Shipton:

Sure. I picked this clip because in, it’s really hard on these panels I think to talk about editing and show clips, because so much of editing is about overall structure that spans whether it’s a half hour of television or a feature film, right. You move stuff around, there’s the flow and the pace and things. And then obviously we’re not going to sit and watch all Burn Your Maps, but we’re watching the first, I guess, three scenes of it. And I love the film, but I picked it because I can talk about a lot of aspects of editing in it. These three scenes were reordered endlessly in the edit, just so that the first scene of the movie as scripted, you’ll see when you see it, was the gymnasium. And then the next scene was the drawing. And then I don’t even actually remember where the therapy session came, but it didn’t come as early as it comes right now. Maybe, maybe third in, but maybe further back. I can’t remember.

 

[Clip plays]

Susan Shipton:

So I should probably give a little backstory on what the film’s about. Obviously they’ve lost a child six months old. I think it was a baby. The family’s in crisis and Wes, the little boy thinks he’s a Mongolian goat herder. So it’s about identity and it’s about a family in crisis and believe it or not, it’s a comedy, dramatic comedy. So the scene that you saw, the last scene where he’s making what you don’t need to know at this point, obviously, but he’s making a suit that he wears. Because he goes to school dressed as a Mongolian goat herder. So that’s what he’s making when he’s tracing and doing all that stuff.

Susan Shipton:

In the first script and the original assembly, the way that it was shot and cut, is that slow move in and the gymnasium, is the opening of the film. And then what actually happens is that a couple of kids who bully him, pardon me, although they’re not hugely important in the film, but they do bully him. They throw that book that he’s making, those sketches, is they throw rolled up paper and he looks up, and he just looks at them and they insult him and leave.

Susan Shipton:

And all that. And he’s looking. That’s his sister in the gym, again, you don’t know them. But he’s looking and he’s isolated, he’s alone. And there’s all that activity around him. So that’s kind of the point of the scene and that he’s also being bullied.

Susan Shipton:

But a couple of things, the bullies weren’t that interesting. They’re not really germane to the story they’re props in terms of understanding Wes’s character. They had the first line of the film. They said something awful to him. And it wasn’t a great performance. So it’s sort of like, “Why are we seeing these bullies”? But then the challenge became well, what’s he doing? And how do we get to it? And all of that, and the director went to Mongolia. The whole film was shot in Alberta, except he went to Mongolia to get some shots.

Susan Shipton:

And that very first shot of the film is a real goat herder in Mongolia. And that kind of sound design that you hear, we came up with in the cutting room with the goats. Obviously we animated it. So you can hear it in that traditional Mongolian music in there.

Susan Shipton:

And so that very first shot of Wes that you come in on, you’re supposed to feel that he’s thinking that. That that’s what he’s thinking about. And that very first shot of Wes is actually the shot from when he looks up at the bullies. I have every single frame possible because of course he just looked back down or whatever he did in the original performance, but because of the performance of the kid, Because he’s a blank palette, so that the editing makes you think about what he’s thinking about.

Susan Shipton:

So in one version we then went directly, and there’s a funny story about that insert of the goats that he’s drawing, I asked for that to be redone because the first time we had the insert, they look like cats or something. And so they did it again and they still look like cats. It’s like one of those moments, like that doesn’t look like goats. But anyway, they couldn’t do it yet again. So we have him scribbling cats, which are supposed to be goats. So then we go off that. And then we went for the longest time, right to him preparing his costume. And that was a really beautiful cut. And I loved that. Because you started the music over the goat/ cat sketch and went right into his room and it was really quite beautiful and quite lyrical.

Susan Shipton:

But then the big thing about that film is that scene in the therapy office, because it is tough. It’s really, really tough because the performances are really good. The subject matter is really real. It’s really raw. And it’s a really tough scene to put at the beginning of a comedy. The beginning of any movie, but I think at the beginning of a comedy. So that scene migrated around the first 30 minutes of the film. It just kept moving and we could never find a place for it. And the director, I can’t really remember where it was scripted for us somewhere around where it actually occurs now, if not there. But as I said, it migrated. And the reason I chose this clip is because I can address lots of things about working as an editor.

Susan Shipton:

And one of them was the fact that people, namely the producers, really had a strong, adverse reaction to having that so early in the film. And we eventually realized that they had a strong or adverse reaction to a woman talking about a blow job.

Sarah Taylor:

Interesting. Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

And a woman talking the way she was talking in a therapy session. Because if you really investigated their issues, that’s what it came down to. And I’m not even saying that, then that’s a cultural thing, the scenes tough, but that just put it over the edge for people.

Sarah Taylor:

And it was too real maybe or something-

Susan Shipton:

They just don’t want to hear women talk like that-

Sarah Taylor:

I suppose so.

Susan Shipton:

Because the evolution of the cutting of that scene, it’s like I was saying to you, it’s ended up pretty much uncut, right? The coverage on that scene, there was closeup coverage, there was loose AB coverage. There was lots of coverage. And the first cut of the scene, I used a lot of it, and the performances were gorgeous.

Susan Shipton:

Vera’s performance to me is just like, it was just a treat. For me, editing isn’t just about picking performance, but we’ll come back to that. So when we had it cut on coverage, the reason why we caughtened on to the real issue around where it was, was because the producers kept asking us for the softer takes of Vera when she was saying those lines.

Susan Shipton:

And in general, softer takes of Vera, softer takes of Vera, softer takes of Vera. That was the one, probably the only note we got on that scene. And then we started going, “Mm hmm, I think we know what’s going on here. It’s a problem with the content”.

Susan Shipton:

And the director to his credit said, “Tough”. It’s going early in the film. And we tested it. And I’m trying to remember what the response was. And that was like somebody was talking earlier about, “How did you respond to a test”? And I think people struggled with that scene, but the director that was part of his vision and it was going to go at the beginning and that was what he was going to do.

Sarah Taylor:

Well, I think by watching the whole film, it makes sense for it to be there. It sets it up and I didn’t react like that when I heard it. I didn’t think it was harsh, but I can see how that’s the case. So when they asked you to do softer, softer, was that how you got to not cutting much in it? Or was it just because of some of the performance, you let those takes just-

Susan Shipton:

We recut that scene and recut it and recut it. And to be honest, the director really became, obsessed is too strong a word, with getting that scene right and getting it the way that he wanted it. And I think in a weird way, I think that there was so much good material that I think he had trouble dealing with that, honestly. Because there were just too many options. And then how we ended up at the two shot. That’s one of my favorite compositions is a two shot. And the tension between the two of them is so palpable in the two shot, because you get the body language, you get the awkwardness and then you get the moment of her reaching for him at the end and crossing a bridge over. You get all that. So when you went out of that, you always had good performance, but you lost that geography.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. That chemistry. Because then even at the end, when she recoils, you-

Susan Shipton:

Oh yeah, it’s tough. I mean, she allows him to come. She warms to him. But as soon as she does it, she pushes him away again. And by the way, the end of that scene, he gets up and he goes to the door, and it’s beautifully written, and it was nicely performed, he basically says, “Yeah, what about me? Don’t you think I’m grieving for my child too? Just because I’m capable of going to work every day, and I’m capable of doing these things, doesn’t mean I’m not grieving for my child and you’re not helping”.

Susan Shipton:

It was great, but it was too much. And it was super hard because it’s not his film either, it’s Vera’s and the kid’s.

Sarah Taylor:

And Wes.

Susan Shipton:

And Wes’s.

Sarah Taylor:

Well, speaking of Wes, I watched the film, I thought he was wonderful. But then I was like, that has a lot to do with you too. How was it editing a young actor? I don’t know. Did he have much experience? Like he’s little so-

Susan Shipton:

Well, he had done Room. And I knew some people that worked on Room. It was the same thing. There’s a thing with actors. And I think it’s what makes some actors into movie stars. I think it’s just the thing and he has it. But a lot of times, I think that’s what it is with child actors. They just have a presence, a rootedness, you don’t feel an artifice, they’re just kind of are. And he has that. Having said that, he was tough. The first scene, real scene, where he’s with Suresh in the carwash. And he meets this guy and the guy’s like, “What? You think you’re a Mongolian goat herder”? And he’s a young filmmaker and he wants to film him. Well, Wes, Jacob Tremblay, was falling asleep through the entire scene.

Sarah Taylor:

Really.

Susan Shipton:

And it was the first scene I got. And he was literally, he’d be sitting there and he’d be going. I was cutting around like, “How many frames do I have before he closes his eyes”? It was like that. And then almost every time I’m off him-

Sarah Taylor:

It’s because he’s sleeping.

Susan Shipton:

He’s got the noddies. And the reason for it, the director talked to him because I was like, “Ahh”, the director was kind of panicked, but Jacob being a kid, he’s on set and they’re candies and chocolate and everything. He gorged himself and then had a sugar crash. And so the director had to say to his parents, who are great, they’re great stage parents. They’re hugely supportive. Had to say to his mother, like “He can’t do that. He has to stay away from the craft table. And he has to go bed at a certain point”.

Susan Shipton:

So there were moments when he was a kid. I mean, he’s a kid. And he would get tired. But that thing that you see in his face, when he was doing well, that’s what you got. And he had a big emotional scene, which unfortunately we cut out for other reasons, and he was good when he was delivering that too. So he did have it.

Sarah Taylor:

You mentioned, at one point when we were talking, that when you were cutting David Wellington’s Long Day’s Journey into Night, that you honed a dialogue editing technique. And I wanted to hear what that was.

Susan Shipton:

It’s something that’s kind of haunted me. I cut that film in 1997 and it was, in my career, aside from Adam’s work, probably the most important and influential thing for me on the way that I cut. And I liked to actually think that I don’t cut any particular way because I want to respond to the material and I cut in a way that’s appropriate to the material. I think, like I was saying about Ron, you go in, you just, you respond to the material. It’s a rhythm. It’s almost a physical rhythm. It’s like, “Where do you cut? You cut where it feels right”.

Susan Shipton:

But editing is such a process. So that’s how you arrive at say the first cut, but then when you go through it and things aren’t working, then I become more analytical about why. And I pay a lot of attention, and this is a tool of analyzing more than an approach to editing, I pay a lot of attention to when dialogue scenes to where I’m cutting between characters on dialogue. And who owns the pauses, so to speak. Like, where are the pauses played and there’s power in pauses.

Sarah Taylor:

Totally yeah.

Susan Shipton:

And how you play them. And again, it’s not like I do it a certain way. One thing that I do, and this was, this is a bit the curse that I consciously try to rid myself of, I actually have a lot of problem creating a dialogue rhythm that isn’t already there in the performance. If I have to tighten something up. Tightening something up is not a problem for me as much as loosening it.

Sarah Taylor:

Making it breathe.

Susan Shipton:

Making it breathe, because if the actors didn’t do it, I find it hard to cut outside of their rhythms. Which is not necessarily a good thing. I’m not saying that it is, that’s why it’s kind of a curse.

Sarah Taylor:

Is it because you’ve watched that footage and you feel connected to that footage? Or why do you feel like it’s not right?

Susan Shipton:

I don’t know why really, because I think, I think it comes from Long Days Journey into Night, which was a stage play and the actors had done it in Stratford, and they were well rehearsed in it. And they did dialogue over. They did some overlapping and stuff like that, but I would actually cut the dialogue tracks and fit the picture in.

Sarah Taylor:

Okay.

Susan Shipton:

And I will still do that. I mean, it’s, it’s interesting because, in reality, people were talking about doing a similar thing.

Sarah Taylor:

The radio edit.

Susan Shipton:

And, I will do that, but I do find sometimes it’s hard. That’s the challenge for me. I find it hard to cut out any of the rhythms and the natural things that people do with their faces. And when they’re speaking to one another. But editing is a process, so I can do it much more easily on the second cut.

Susan Shipton:

On the first cut, they have all those moments and those are all in there. And then I can go through. I think because Long Day’s Journey was such a dialogue heavy film. And I really, really had so much opportunity to really look at the effect you have, for instance, when you cut in the middle of a clause versus between clauses. When you lay a word over or where you pre-lap, and there’s no right or wrong thing to do about that, it’s just paying attention to the impact that had on the story, the emotional story you were telling.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. And you mentioned that you pay attention to the pauses. What is it about the pause? What do you look for? Is it a feeling? Or is it the expression? Or just a natural rhythm?

Susan Shipton:

The actors that I find the hardest to cut are the ones that do a whole lot of things before their reaction. Because you’re going to cut it out, it’s just too long. But then I find that there’s an emotional transition missing. This is another thing that I’m really big on when I’m cutting dialogue, is emotional transitions. In other words, if you’re on somebody and they’re angry or they’re about to cry, and you cut away a couple of places and you come back and that person is in tears, it makes it look like it’s bad editing.

Sarah Taylor:

You lose it. Yeah. You lose that emotion.

Susan Shipton:

And that’s one of the huge challenges because maybe it took that person way too long to start to cry.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, totally. Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

So now what do you do? Now you figure out a way when something’s not working for me again, I look at it and I say, “Do I have the emotional transitions”? And frankly, sometimes you can’t. Like in Guest of Honour, in fact, there’s this incredible performance by David Thewlis. And we just went with it. It’s just one shot of him. It’s beautiful. And a lot of it, I think was ad-libbed, but it was too long. It’s already three minutes. We just stay in his face for three minutes and it was six or something before. So we had cut out the beginning of it. And I don’t know if anybody else will feel it. Now you’ll all look for it.

Sarah Taylor:

We’re all going to look for it.

Susan Shipton:

But when we cut away from him, we come back, I feel that loss of a little emotional transition. And I tried to fix it with a breath and some sound effects and stuff, but stuff like that makes me crazy.

Sarah Taylor:

I love it. Let’s talk a little bit about performance. And you say it’s not all about performance always, but it is in the rhythm and that side of editing for you.

Susan Shipton:

Well, it’s funny because I often hear editors say, “It’s all about performance. It’s all about performance”, and yeah, of course, it is. These are great performances, but that’s not the only reason why that’s that scene is played mostly on a two-shot. It’s played mostly on a two shot because we would have lost the physicality between them to do it otherwise. There’s another cut of that scene, that’s good. And arguably, I kind of wish I’d been able to bring it, you could say, “Yeah, it’s better”.

Sarah Taylor:

There’s more dynamics or something.

Susan Shipton:

Whatever. There’s no one perfect way to cut a scene. But editing is a craft as much as an art, or an instinct. And you use what’s given you. And that’s composition, shot composition, sound, pace. In some scenes, actually in the one that we’ll see in the dinner scene, this is another thing that we’ll all often do, not just me, is I will cut to somebody two or three cuts before I really need them. Because that’s going to set up that reaction, right?

Susan Shipton:

If you’re on, somebody, like in this dinner scene we see, he’s just sitting there like this. I’m setting that up for when he talks. Because he’s like a time bomb. So again, if I want to see that emotional transition, then I’ve got to go to that person before I really need to. So well, “Why am I going to him”? Well, there’s craft involved there, right?

Susan Shipton:

And I think the same thing with performance. There are some good performances and great performances in films I’ve cut that are on the cutting room floor. They have to be. I have an hour worth of dailies, not every great performance is in the cut. And I may say, I’m on a wide shot here, even though the performance is in the close, I’m on a wide shot here, because if I go in close, I just don’t have any gas left by the end of the scene.

Susan Shipton:

And I absolutely think as much, maybe I’ll never work again after I say this, but I think as much about shot size and composition as I do about performance. It’s film.

Sarah Taylor:

In a lot of the films you work on, you have really great actors who give you a lot of really great performance too, so that helps right.

Susan Shipton:

Having said that it, I’m not going to use a bad performance. But it’s one of the things that I consider. Because otherwise, I think, yeah-

Sarah Taylor:

Well then all the parts come together. That’s the joy of filmmaking. It’s not just about that great actor or that great cinematographer, and we all collaborate and make it good.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah.

Sarah Taylor:

You touched on the scene, we’re going to see it’s a dinner scene from the film, Barney’s Version directed by Richard J. Lewis. Maybe tell us a little bit about the film.

Susan Shipton:

So this is based on Mordecai Richler’s book, Paul Giamatti plays Barney Panofsky and his father is played by Dustin Hoffman. And his father is a tough cop. And Minnie Driver plays the woman that Paul Giamatti has met and asked her to marry him. And she comes from a very wealthy family. So, Izzy who’s, Dustin Hoffman, is like a ticking time bomb in the scene because you just wonder when he’s going to really embarrass himself.

Sarah Taylor:

It’s so good.

Susan Shipton:

The challenge in cutting this was, for me, aside from the comedy of it, was to keep the relationships alive. Because Barney, Paul Giamatti, loves his father. He loves him to death. They have a really strong relationship. He knows he’s rough around the edges and all of that. And Paul Giamatti is such an extraordinary actor that what he’s able to bring to it is, he’s a little worried how this is going to go. But there’s also a protectiveness about his father. So I wanted to bring that in. And Dustin’s character just is what it is. But I wanted to try and bring in Barney’s response to all this.

Susan Shipton:

But the real reason why I picked this was not because it’s comedy, but I picked it because it’s a dinner table scene. And I just find those so hard to cut. They fall under the category. I’ve actually picked an action sequence for the last thing. And it’s in the same category for me, which is, scenes in which many things happen at once. Ay yai yai. They’re so hard. And I think directors find them hard to shoot those kind of things. And everyone’s isolated, except they’re not isolated completely because there’s continuity issues, especially with Dustin Hoffman on this. And then there’s eye-line issues.

Susan Shipton:

And so I picked it because I find them really hard because you want to get to everybody, but you don’t want it to be cutty. And so I picked it for that reason. And the other two reasons I picked it is, it pauses, it’s playing pauses, setting up jokes as well, setting up moments. And lastly, I picked it because I think it’s about stardom because when I first saw the dailies, this is Dustin Hoffman’s introduction into the movie, and when I first saw the dailies, I thought, “Really”? In a big theater, that’s quite a wide shot.

Susan Shipton:

You can’t even recognize that it’s Dustin. And so I thought, “Really that’s Izzy? Dustin Hoffman’s character introduction”? And then I saw the door open, I thought, “Oh, that’s where I’ll start”. And then I actually went to the door open in one cut and it was way too tight and I was kind of worried about it. Not that I wanted, a drum roll or anything, but I wanted something more than a generic wide shot of a mansion. But we screened the film in L.A. at a test screening, and Dustin Hoffman got two words out of his mouth, and everybody knew who he was. And they laughed before he finished his line. I actually think it’s a perfect way to start the scene anyway now. But I thought that was so interesting to watch that.

Sarah Taylor:

You’re like, “Okay, I don’t have to worry about that anymore”.

Susan Shipton:

That whole audience just rock for an American legend, basically, as an actor.

Sarah Taylor:

Well, let’s, let’s watch this clip. It’s Barney’s Version.

 

[Clip plays]

 

Sarah Taylor:

So great. And I even, I felt awkward watching the moment where you’re like, Ooh, okay, that’s good.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah. The thing that I remember most about cutting that scene, it was really, really tough to cut. All the editors in the room will recognize all the continuity potential there to try and build all those moments. Dustin Hoffman did not know his lines, so they were different every time. There were more lines in the scene than… But the scene was just too long, so it had to be cut down. All the usual stuff that we deal with. But the thing that I’m proudest of probably is the opening with him, with his fork. Cause that’s the first thing you have to do as an editor is decide how to start. And I find that the hardest thing. And I saw that in dailies and I thought that’s the beginning of the scene. And it’s before cut, or before action.

Sarah Taylor:

Oh, he’s just playing.

Susan Shipton:

Well, he’s just getting ready. And I just was… And I thought, just keep doing it. It’s so great. So I took every moment of it. And then I had to put a sound effect in, cause people were talking over it, and I amp the sound effect, which ended up being in the case just cause, and then I went back, I thought that’s just, I got to try a few other things. And I started on the wide, because there’s an incredible tension on the wide you come in the room, they’re all sitting there. But I ended up back with the fork. Cause it’s everything.

Sarah Taylor:

It’s really sets up his character.

Susan Shipton:

It totally sets up his character. And that was Dustin. I don’t think he was directed and he didn’t do it every take, but he did it once, so I got it.

Sarah Taylor:

But you saw it and you felt it, and you snatched it up.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah.

Sarah Taylor:

That’s great. Anything else about that that back and forth?

Susan Shipton:

All the editors know it’s really hard to talk about what’s not there, which is the work, right?

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

But I think it… I don’t know when I’m looking at, I just, again, it is, the performances really are beautiful. They gave me all that stuff that we were looking for because… I mean probably Dustin Hoffman less so because he’s just being Izzy, he’s just being kind of outrageous. And although, he’s this lovely, lovely moment where he goes back at Minnie Driver’s father, but then he saves it, which is such a great character moment for him. He gets up and he gives the toast. It’s a scene that just kind of goes like this, and I just really like it.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. When you were working on films with people like Dustin Hoffman and Paul Giamatti, do you have, when you’re first looking at dailies, are you the young you who started, PAing in the industry scene? Well, now I’m cutting these big names. Do you have any star struck moments or are you just like, no, we’re going to tell this story and we’re in it and-

Susan Shipton:

Oh totally completely star struck by Dustin Hoffman. Oh my God. One of the films that was my favorite film of my life was a Little Big Man. And, I love Dustin Hoffman. He was… And when I got this, I thought I can’t… I’m cutting a Dustin Hoffman movie? The pinch me moment, for sure. And Paul Giamatti. And there’s another scene in Barney’s Version, which is a dialogue between the two of them. And it’s really beautiful. It’s really, really beautiful. But Paul Giamatti I think affected me more than anybody because he is such a great actor. Yeah.

Sarah Taylor:

When you came on to, maybe we’ll talk about this film specifically or whichever film you want, are you coming in, the scripts already written and done and your… They’re about to shoot? What… Do you get to put input on the script side of things? Where does your creative component start?

Susan Shipton:

Well it depends. I get, when I work with Atom, he has sort of layers of people he gives the script to at different stages, and I’m one of the early ones. So, I read his scripts quite early and give him input and then he will give them out. Cause he recognizes that people at a certain point, you’re not fresh anymore. Right?

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, for sure.

Susan Shipton:

So I usually see early drafts of his. With Barney’s I saw… It’s produced by Robert Lantos and I was doing a lot of films with him at the time, so I saw a fairly early draft of that. And just, in terms of what I’m looking for in a script that I know is going to be challenging, and Barney’s Version was a great example of it, is subplots.

Susan Shipton:

And, Barney’s Version is a difficult book to adapt. The script was beautiful. Oh, this was another thing. The script was beautiful, beautiful script. It was 130 pages long. Right away, it should have been 110, 100. And they wanted to film around 110 minutes. And I said, Robert, you know, and he said, we’ll cut it down in the edit, Susan. And I should never have let him get away with that because that’s like you create a three legged table. Right? And the heartbreaking thing for me and Barney’s Version that I talked about killing children, I killed some children. It was awful. And it also left some of the kids that were alive, maimed,

Sarah Taylor:

Oh no. Those poor kids.

Susan Shipton:

And that, and I hate that. And I said that to the director and he said, well, Susan, I’m so glad to hear you say that. I really didn’t think it bothered you. I’m like, of course it bothered me. Here’s an example, there’s this whole… There are three marriages in the film. Right? And there’s… The first one was the one that suffered the most. And just because we… Test audiences all said it was too long. And they were right. So it had to be cut down. So, the first marriage, she’s frightened of storms, and there’s a big storm and he’s comforting her when they’re first married, he’s comforting her cause she’s scared. And he says, here have a banana, eat a banana, you’ll feel better, you haven’t eaten. And so she eats it and she peels it from the wrong end. And he says, why you peel it that way, and she said, I don’t know, I read somewhere that monkeys do it. And so that’s, I figured, they’d know. And it’s kind of funny and it’s lovely, right? It had to go.

Susan Shipton:

But in the end of the movie, Dustin Hoffman is handed a… Or Paul Giamatti, who has Alzheimer’s, is handed a banana. And he turns it around to be the way that she told him. And it’s so, and I love it when stuff is planted in a script that then pays off. Right? So it broke my heart that that set up for that. Now it plays. Cause you just think he doesn’t know… He has Alzheimer’s, and he’s struggling-

Sarah Taylor:

He forgot about bananas.

Susan Shipton:

With how to eat a banana. But it had so much more resonance. And there are a lot of moments in Barney’s that suffered that fate from my evil editing hands.

Sarah Taylor:

How dare you.

Susan Shipton:

How dare I.

Sarah Taylor:

When you’re in that situation where you’re looking at this script and you’re seeing all these subplots and can you, do you say, yeah you got to ditch it?

Susan Shipton:

Yes. People need to tell the stories they need to tell. I think that the method of storytelling through limited series is much more liberating. I mean, I love feature films and I love the big screen, but the subplots, for instance, in Barney’s Version would not have been a problem in even a four-part mini series. Right? So, I mean I think that’s a good thing. I mean, Robert Lantos made a film years ago, a Hungarian film, I can’t remember the name of it now. It was so long. And I remember, I didn’t cut it, I remember seeing the hour and a half version that they cut it down to. And one of the sound editors on it told me the three hour version was way better. And, but they couldn’t go. Right? And, so that’s a film as well that would have benefited by a longer format. So.

Sarah Taylor:

We’re going to kind of shift gears a bit. Over your career, you’ve worked on many different types of editing systems. Steenbeck, Moviola. Did you say K-E-M or KEM? I don’t remember that one.

Susan Shipton:

KEM.

Sarah Taylor:

Pic Sync, Avid, Lightworks. I’m sure there’s many others. And I feel like even now, and the technology we’re in now, the systems are changing at a fast pace, and we’re almost chasing the technology. So, how do you approach this? Or what are your thoughts on how we are always having to do the next thing and or adding more to what the editor’s role is in the edit suite.

Susan Shipton:

It’s changed so much in the last 10 years that, when I was, I cut on a Moviola, I cut KEM, we cut The Adjuster on a Cinemata, which is an old Italian editing machine that they were using 40 years before me. Right? You’re lucky if you’re cutting on the same software four weeks from now. Right? I mean, imagine that I was actually, when I started, cutting on the same… In the same way that editors started cutting on. Right? And it was, I’m not that old, it was like a while later. So the changes that have occurred in the last 10 years, and certainly we’re not the only people in the world experiencing this. And I say 10 years, because it’s really 20, but the incredible fast paced change to me has happened in the last 10 years.

Susan Shipton:

And as I said, we’re not the only ones. This is the world that we’re… The great promise of technology was it was going to give us more tools and a better life. And it’s definitely given us more tools, but it’s also made… Increased the workload hugely. And it’s my concern about editors is I feel like we have a lot of skills, but I also, and it’s great, it’s a matter of balance really, because my concern is that we’re being turned into generalists. That we are having to acquire so many skills at such a high level, because a skill with music, a skill with sound, a skill with writing, those are all talents that we’ve all always had to have because it’s part of storytelling. But I think the level at which we’re required to execute and perform all of those roles, I think it’s worthy of a lot of thought and a lot of reflection and a lot of discussion.

Susan Shipton:

I don’t know how you initiate that. And I don’t know how you approach it because as I said, we are not the only ones experiencing this in the world, but in the film industry, I think we experience it at a higher level than other departments. I think probably the department next to us who experiences these changes as profoundly as us would be the art department. But, how do you find a balance saying I can put some music on this, to I’m doing 40 to 50% of the composer’s work.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. I’m doing all of the sound designing, I’m yeah.

Susan Shipton:

And listen, it’s not going to become less because the technology is only going to allow us to do more. And I guess I think the other thing that concerns me is yes, we do music, yes we do sound, yes we do color timing.

Susan Shipton:

But we’re not composers, we’re not sound editors, we’re not colors, and we’re not seen to be. Right? So, when we do those roles, I don’t think they get the same acknowledgement financially, monetarily they don’t, as they do when the real people come and do them.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

And, I’m not… I don’t want to be seen as resistant because technology does allow you to play with those things. It’s just going forward, it’s just your use of words is really apt I think, is, are we making the technology work for us or are we running behind it trying to keep up all the time?

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

And I think there’s a bit too much of the latter and less of the former.

Sarah Taylor:

And then do we lose some of what our skill is, which is telling the story and helping shape the story. Because now we have to make sure, okay, we got to fit an extra, however many hours today to make sure the color is all good so that whoever looks at our cut is not upset or… So yeah, it’s a discussion, when do we stop? And then also I feel like sound design and color grading and composing, those are all elements that make the film better, that enhance our performance, and enhance what’s there. And if some of that’s being taken away, then we’re losing some of that art.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah. I mean, I really think, as I said, a supervising editor, had a lot of control and a lot of input over all of those elements, and as in the beginnings of the technology, when we first started working on Avid, there seemed to be a little bit more of a balance. It was like, ah, great, we can put some music on here, great. We can smooth these soundtracks. And now it’s like, you could broadcast this stuff out of an Avid, or there’s that expectation, you can’t… There’s that expectation. And I… The picture editors that I know, when we get together and talk, we either talk about the latest technology, or mostly they talk about storytelling.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

Picture editors see themselves as storytellers. That’s what gets them going. That’s what interests them, us. And I think to diversify so greatly is a disservice to that talent.

Sarah Taylor:

I agree.

Susan Shipton:

You know?

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

I don’t know what the hell you do with that, but.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. Next year. We’ll talk about it next year.

Susan Shipton:

I mean, I do have some ideas.

Sarah Taylor:

Well, you can share.

Susan Shipton:

Well, I mean, I think that using the technology to more efficiently and in a more sophisticated manner bring the departments together.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

That’s what I would say. I totally get why a composer doesn’t want to do a temp track. Listen, I wouldn’t either. It’s a different part of the brain, right, if I were them. But I do think that, why is the music department-

Sarah Taylor:

They’re not there.

Susan Shipton:

Not more involved? Why has that become us so exclusively? When did that happen? I missed that part. Right? And I know why, because they’re not on generally – on most things I work on – they’re not paid to be on till later. Well is there a way to bring them on sooner? And yeah, we’ll have that conversation, we’ll put it on. But involve people earlier.

Sarah Taylor:

Bring it back to that collaboration.

Susan Shipton:

I’m really afraid that people don’t know how to look at cuts anymore without them sounding like they’re ready for a TV and that’s that ain’t going to change either.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. Well, speaking of TV.

Susan Shipton:

Yep.

Sarah Taylor:

Yep. You’ve worked a lot in the television realm, and the process is different. You got your time constraints with the actual time that is being broadcast, the time constraints with the schedule, keeping the arc of your series. So let’s touch a little bit about the process that you take going into a television cut, and then we’ll show our TV clip after that.

Susan Shipton:

The process is the same for me. Well, no, it’s different. On a feature, I have more time. My process on a feature is to look at the dailies and make notes and find those bits that I like. But, given, as I said, that I also cut with composition and rhythm in mind just as much, I do still make notes, obviously of that’s a great moment, that’s a great moment. But television is different primarily because there’s a lot more footage, right? Or I should say, if there is a lot more, then I have a different approach, whether it’s a feature or television. I don’t have the time or the attention span, frankly, to look at three hours of dailies and make detailed notes.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

I think that’s great if people do, honestly, I do, I’m not being flip, I do, but I don’t. So what I feel I’m obliged to do is make sure that by the time I’ve got that scene in the first assembly, I’ve looked at all the dailies.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

So what I’ll do is I’ll take… I’ll kind of scroll through them. I’ll look carefully at the selected takes, the last two, and drop them in and get a structure. Cause also and every editor is different for me, psychologically looking at dailies and a completely uncut scene is really difficult. I need to… I’m much better and much happier when I have something.

Sarah Taylor:

Something it’s daunting if it’s–

Susan Shipton:

Exactly. And I know some editors are really meticulous and that’s the way they work, but I need something. So I’ll get that together as quickly as possible. In fact, I have a word for it. I call them slappers.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

And I’ll slap it together as quickly as possible, cause I know that at, on every cut, every choice I’ve made, I’m going to go back in and look at the dailies and recut.

Sarah Taylor:

You make me feel really good right now. Cause I used to feel guilty that I didn’t sit there for five hours and watch all the footage, cause I’m the same way, I want to put it down. You’re still going to watch it all, but you need to do something.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah. I got over the guilt a long time ago.

Sarah Taylor:

I’m going to take… I’m going to throw that away now. Thank you very much.

Susan Shipton:

I’m not sure that this way of working is more efficient, however.

Sarah Taylor:

Well maybe I won’t then.

Susan Shipton:

I’m not sure, I’m not promoting it as a way of working. It’s just for me mentally, I have to have something to work from.

Sarah Taylor:

Typically when you’re on a series, how many episodes are you cutting? Are you coming in at the beginning? Are you getting your scripts ahead of time? How does that kind of work for you?

Susan Shipton:

Unless I’m cutting the very first one, I don’t necessarily get scripts cause they’re still writing them on TV. Right?

Sarah Taylor:

Okay.

Susan Shipton:

The Book of Negroes was different cause that was a limited series and it was a passion piece by Clement. And I did get episodes one and two, I think early on, with time to give input. Too long. Killed us. But generally, no, I don’t get a script until a couple of days before or whatever. And I would do, on a 10 part series, do two or three episodes. I usually do about two or three, depending on the length of the series.

Sarah Taylor:

Okay. Well we have a clip from The Expanse. Do you want to set it up?

Susan Shipton:

Yeah, this is like the dinner scene weirdly. It’s an action scene totally, and couldn’t be more unlike the dinner scene, but like it because it’s lots of things happening at once scene. I found this so challenging to cut the scene. Oddly, it’s directed by an editor, because literally everything happened at once. There’s… I don’t really remember what’s happening except that our heroes are in the outfits, and in the uniforms, you know them from The Expanse, if you know the show, and the bad guys are coming in the back. So the hotel desk is here, the bad guys are coming in the back. They’re also coming in behind them. And that all happens at once. And gun things happen.

Sarah Taylor:

And the biggest challenge I had was the geography, right? In order for there to be any real stakes that our heroes are going to get shot, you have to know who’s going to shoot at them and create that tension. And there’s lots of eyes going around like this, right? But because it all happened at once and they were in one another’s shots, it was super hard to find the air in there, to put it together because it was… I mean, all the editors know what I’m talking about. What I find, and it’s funny, I watched it again for this clip and what I’ll tell you what bothers me about it, but.

Sarah Taylor:

Let’s watch it, the last one.

 

[Clip plays]

Sarah Taylor:

There’s a lot happening.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah. Yeah. There’s a lot happening. I mean, the thing that bothers me about the scene but it doesn’t bother me a lot, because I know I tried to fix it, is I need a master out there more often than I had, because to set the geography. I think, and I just didn’t have it, because literally everything … There was a master shooting that way and a master shooting back that way. I had them, but I’ve used it every single place I can to help with the geography. But that was my frustration about that scene. And it’s funny, because there was a fair amount of footage, but somebody was talking about it earlier, and my expression is, there’s less here than meets the eye. Once you get into it and you realize, oh, there really is only so many shots of Amos doing this, or so many shots of the couch, whatever, it starts to get smaller than it first appears. Which is also why, psychologically, I think I like to get a cut, because then in doing that, I’m also getting to know the dailies as well. But what I love about this scene is the music.

Sarah Taylor:

That was my favourite part.

Susan Shipton:

And that was… We had a music supervisor on that. So, that’s an old hotel lobby, right? And it’s got all these Caribbean kind of things, so I asked the music supervisor, “So can you give me some cheesy lobby music that would be in a Caribbean kind of thing?” And so, she sent like five or six choices and I picked that one. And then everyone said, “Oh, you have to put music on, you have to put music on when the gunfight starts.”

Sarah Taylor:

No.

Susan Shipton:

Well, they made me put music on, because I was like, why? There are guns going. That just is like, I heard this expression the other day, a hat on a hat. Why would I do that? And it was hard. So, I went and I tried. I got it from a John Carpenter soundtrack, and I put this music on it. And then the showrunner, who’s a brilliant showrunner, he’s like, get the music off it. It’s just going to be so funny when that gunfight goes and then dee de dee at the end. So, I liked that those decisions were made the way that they were made. And the zip and stuff. I would have put that in the first cut, Amos’s zip sound. And there were a couple of other sound effects, not many.

Susan Shipton:

And “The Expanse” was a fun show, because we had comp artists. So, those visual effects that you see of the tablet and stuff, I would have had those not right away to work with, but fairly early to work with as comps, or as temps before they were actually done by the vis effects people.

Sarah Taylor:

How long would a scene like that take to do your assembly?

Susan Shipton:

I don’t even know how long it would have taken me to do that, because I nibbled at it.

Sarah Taylor:

Right. Yeah. It’s a big one.

Susan Shipton:

I nibbled that one. Yeah. I would’ve slappered and nibbled it.

Sarah Taylor:

That’s good. When you’re in the throes of an edit, whether it’s a feature or a series that has a tight schedule, what do you do to make sure that you stay sane or healthy?

Susan Shipton:

Assuming I’m sane. That’s a huge leap. I think I actually like writing, and I work on short film ideas and stuff like that. But except for that, I do things that are as unrelated as possible to being in an editing room. I get outside as much as I possibly can. That’s just what I like to do. Play with my dog, gardening. Anybody who’s on Facebook with me sees endless pictures of my dog. But that’s just a totally separate thing. So, I think it’s whatever a person enjoys in life, you just try and do as much of that as possible. I don’t know.

Sarah Taylor:

Make sure that you still have a life out of the edit suite.

Susan Shipton:

But by the way, I think these hours that this panel was talking about in reality is just…

Sarah Taylor:

It’s long.

Susan Shipton:

It’s horrible. I just think that’s horrific.

Sarah Taylor:

Let’s make that stop.

Susan Shipton:

I have such a problem with that. And I think it is symptomatic of what happens when you’re expected to do far too many things. Because if you’re going to be expected to do all those things, you need more time. People are making a lot of money out of those shows. Anyway. Get off the soap box, Susan.

Susan Shipton:

No, I find that deeply upsetting. I do not work those hours. I don’t. First of all, I don’t. I mean, I’m working a show right now where the hours are tougher than I’ve ever experienced. I’m out the door by seven at the latest, usually. I’m happy to work later if it’s required, but a lot of times I’ll leave at six. Now, “Barney’s Version”, we worked pretty late. But generally, I don’t think that long hours are necessary in editing, and I don’t think they’re beneficial. My brain is fried.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, I agree.

Susan Shipton:

We’re working on computers.

Sarah Taylor:

Eventually you’re just sitting there wasting time. You’re not doing anything.

Susan Shipton:

Well, I compare it to writing. And I know there are writers that work long hours, but not very many of them. Because on set, it’s a lot of… And I don’t think they should be working the hours they’re working either. But it’s a lot of hurry up and wait. Whereas in editing, if you’re sitting in front of an Avid, you’re editing, right? Unless you go to the bathroom, you’re editing. So, you know, yeah.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. This is our last question before the Q and A. What do you hate to hear from directors, showrunners and other editors?

Susan Shipton:

The thing that is bugging me right now is when people say “don’t cut, line cut.” Don’t… I don’t want to be in this edit on everybody when they’re speaking. It falls in the category to me of, that’s not a direction to an editor. What do you want to see? You know, and it’s about saying I’m not a certain kind of editor, whatever that is. It’s about saying I’m not a bad editor. So, as soon as somebody says that to me, it’s like saying, please don’t be a bad editor. Okay. You know, I just, I don’t like directions that aren’t useful, that aren’t really about storytelling, Right? And don’t, I mean, I’ll cut every single line on a character when they’re talking if it works. Or not, it doesn’t usually work, but you know, or not, right? Another favourite, unfavourite direction is “just fuck it up a bit”.

Sarah Taylor:

What does that even mean?

Susan Shipton:

I know, a showrunner says that, I want to say, “How much do you get paid a year to tell me, to come up with that direction?” So, I don’t like that. I’m not particularly fond of “just have fun” either, because these are all things that I’ve heard, and they aren’t directions. Now, having said that, sometimes you get a problematic scene and no one quite knows what to do with it. And they say, you know what? I worked years ago on a really bad children’s MOW and the director was a sweetheart and a very good director. And he was stuck with bad performances and his schedule and dah, dah, dah, dah. And he said to me, he said, “Susan, don’t ever say I said this, but just cut a lot, okay? It’s going to help.” And he was right. We just went in and when in trouble go fast, we cut a lot and I let him get away with that, because he was super smart when we were in trouble. But as a general kind of direction to editors of, you know, “just fuck it up”, not so much.

Sarah Taylor:

Or insert funky montage.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah. Oh, that’s another thing that bugs me, is no one shoots montages anymore, but they ask you to cut them all the time. What’s up with that?

Sarah Taylor:

You got all the footage. What are you talking about?

Susan Shipton:

Just make it a montage. Okay. Just because the director didn’t make it a montage.

Sarah Taylor:

On that note, let’s open it up to the audience for any questions.

Audience Question:

Hi. I was having an interesting conversation with a colleague of mine last week, about how filmmakers that don’t have lives make films about making films. And I think that you kind of touched on that when you were saying like, you should get outside and walk your dog or whatever. How does who you are colour your work, and how do you put your own little signature on things? What would you say your signature is?

Susan Shipton:

I really hope I don’t put a signature on my work, actually. Yeah. I feel pretty strongly about not putting my signature on my work. What I want my work to be is good, you know? And I think good editing serves the drama. I want, and I’m not saying I am, but I would want to be a person who can cut different genres, different types of films and adapt my so-called style to that. And that’s hard. It’s challenging, right? To do that. And I’m not saying I’m successful at it, but I think that would be a goal, I’d like to…

Susan Shipton:

This sounds terribly arrogant, and I don’t mean it about me, but I think the goal would be to be a good editor and have people say the style is good editing versus… And it kind of connects with what we were just talking about, is like laying a style or an approach over a project. I think when you go into something and you want people to feel you, that’s what happens. I want the story to be served. And sometimes the editing can be quite self-conscious to serve that, for sure. But it needs to serve the story.

Audience Question:

You were talking earlier about the amount of work that editors have to do and if other people were coming in earlier, and it reminded me of something I heard about “Joker”, where the composer wrote something, shared it with the director, the director shared it with Joaquin Phoenix, and that’s how he came up with that dance that he does in the bathroom, I don’t know if you’ve seen it, which is extraordinary. And so, it made me wonder about all of this technological change that we’re going through, and we’re still dealing with an industry that’s based on 20th century workflows. Do you see anything when you look into the future about how we might work better or different?

Susan Shipton:

I think that that’s possible and desirable, for sure. I don’t have, I’m not a technological innovator, so I don’t have that vision, but I sure hope there are people working and thinking about that, because you’re talking about “Joker”. It’s budget, because on bigger films like that, for sure they’ve got the composer involved earlier, for sure, right? And on some television series, even lower budget Canadian television series, I know producers do that. I think that what’s happened, and I wouldn’t say it’s our fault, but we’ve allowed it for it’s just happened, is that we have taken all of that on and it becomes increasingly difficult to divest yourself of those increased responsibilities as we go along. And I don’t know. And again, I’m not resistant to working with being able to take advantage of the tools we have and work with music and sound and all of that. It’s just a balance.

Susan Shipton:

And the other thing, I think it’s a terrible disservice to composers, because they bring something quite unique. And I’ve been around long enough, I remember when they hated temp tracks and they didn’t want to see stuff with temp tracks on it. Now, they’re kind of addicted to them, I think, for the most part. That was another one of my things I hate. I hate it when composers complain about temp tracks in a demeaning manner, because they’re a hell of a lot of work. And I think picture editors are taking a lot of the bullets. We’re trying this stuff. It used to be the composer that would have to try that stuff. And no, no, no, that doesn’t work.

Susan Shipton:

So, it’s just, it’s the balance. So, I think it’s a good question, and I think it’s where a lot of discussions should be going, because it can, the technology is not working as well. It’s not just a matter of lifestyle, but though, I think that’s hugely important. It’s also are we pulling all the best creative energy into a project through our use of technology? And I don’t think so yet. And I think the wrong people are probably controlling it, right? Wrong in that they don’t have that as their modus operandi when they’re developing technology and selling it. Be great if that’s what’s their biggest concern is, amalgamating stuff and workflow and quality of life, but that’s not.

Audience Question:

Have you done any directing?

Susan Shipton:

Yes. I directed a short film many years ago, and that was, it’s something that I would like to do, so hopefully I’ll be able to do it again. I came second in the DGC short film funding contest. Second was nothing. I know.

Sarah Taylor:

Try again, that’s what they say.

Susan Shipton:

I will try again.

Audience Question:

Hi, first off, thank you very much for the panel. It’s been great. I just, curious question, but is there any kind of uncharted territory in terms of editing that you’re looking to explore maybe? Just out of curiosity.

Susan Shipton:

Oh, that’s a good question. I hadn’t really thought about it, actually. There’s always… “The Expense” was a big one for me, because I’d never done that kind of work before. You know what I would really like to do? I would really, and it’s probably never going to happen for me, but I would love to work with a team of editors on something. I love, and it’s one of the things I really love about television, is I really love working with other editors, and depending on those people and the project, I love walking down the hall and going, “Can you look at this?” And I just think that would be so exciting to do that, to work on a big show, a big movie with other editors. Yeah,

Susan Shipton:

I did it once on a film called “Mr. Nobody”, and we had two editors. I was the second editor. The first editor was a Belgian, because it was a co-pro and blah, blah, blah. Anyway, he was the lead editor, but the director and the lead editor taught at the Belgian film school. And they were always, they were inviting their film students all the time to come and cut. It was a riot. I was sitting cutting away, and this young woman comes to my door and says, “I’ve got a cut of that scene, if you’d like it.” But it was so fun to have them around and to, I don’t know, so that I’d like to do, but I don’t know if that’s going to happen.

Audience Question:

Thank you for the talk and sharing information. I have a question about Atom Egoyan’s approach to filmmaking, and you mentioned this earlier, there’s an intellectual distance, and yet you wanted to bring out the emotional impact of this story. And so, how do you find balancing the two? Or do you… I guess I’ll leave it at that. How do you find balancing the intellectual distance of his approach with getting the emotional pull, if that makes sense?

Susan Shipton:

Yeah, it does make sense. Hm. That’s a good question. I think I just keep responding to the material the way I respond, and it probably is on a more emotional level. And as I said, I do find a lot of his, a lot of the performances, a lot of the characters deeply moving, right? And I think he does too. It’s just that Atom… Atom… As an intellectual construct on his work, he’s always felt uncomfortable manipulating people. I remember that from the very first job interview I had when I did “The Adjuster”. We’re sitting at the Amsterdam having beer, I’ll never forget it. And I read the script, and every time the scene got to the emotional part or got to a build, he cut away, right?

Susan Shipton:

And I asked him about that. I said, “I just kind of feel like you can squeeze a couple of those together, because we go here and then we go somewhere else and we come back to that scene, but we’d been somewhere else, so by the time we came back”. And he, and I still remember he said to me, “I just, I’m so uncomfortable manipulating people’s emotions, right?” And that’s where he comes from as an artist. So, on some level, but he’s also like, I know he comes from an emotional place too, because it’s there and I connect to it, right? So, I think it’s… I don’t know if that answers it. He has a whole crazy way of working we could talk about too.

Sarah Taylor:

Maybe a whole other panel.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah.

Audience Question:

I was just wondering how you deal with theme and subtext in a film, second layer stuff, second level stuff. If the film is, the plot is about one thing, but the theme and the subtext that the director is trying to get across is something else. Or it’s… I don’t know if I’m articulating this properly, but do you feel there’s a tension between the two when you’re editing and you have to balance the two?

Susan Shipton:

I don’t think, no, I don’t, because theme and subtext is not my wheelhouse. I’m all about what’s in front of me on the screen. And I’m all about how the drama is playing out emotionally, and the overall structure, how we can tell the story, right? And whatever kind of thematic construct someone places on it, or a critical interpretation of it later, is for them. Because, and it kind of speaks a bit to the question the other gentleman had too, about the theory versus the emotion. You’re always, always telling a story, always. And the story may be a person getting up and walking across the room. That’s a three part story. They got up, they walked across the room and they left. So, the broader… It always fascinates me when I hear people talk about the writing of a piece, right? And they talk about all those kinds of things you were saying. I’m like, “Oh, really?” I just thought she should be crying then, because he said something that upset her. So, you know…

Sarah Taylor:

That’s great.

Audience Question:

I’m just wondering, what do you like those director and how did director communicate with you? I mean, in the positive way. We know what we don’t like about what kind of director, but what do you like about, and…

Sarah Taylor:

That’s a good one.

Susan Shipton:

That’s such a great question. Thank you for answering that, otherwise we’d be on the record with my gripes.

Sarah Taylor:

Like, oh, she’s cranky again.

Susan Shipton:

I only had three little ones.

Sarah Taylor:

I’m just teasing.

Susan Shipton:

But for public consumption. Trust is everything. And it has to go both ways. And I think it’s very easy for people to imagine that a director has to trust an editor. An editor has to trust a director, because we are creative people and we do put ourselves out on the line. When you take somebody’s work and cut it together, the first assembly can be a gut-wrenching experience, right? And the great thing about having repeat offenders like Atom in my life is that there’s a trust there. And I know that, it’s not even that I can experiment or not, because I know I can, it’s that if he laughs, it’s not going to be horrible.

Susan Shipton:

I mean, I trust that he takes me seriously. I trust that I have that relationship with him, no matter what happens. And he comes from a place of respect with his creative collaborators, and trust and respect is huge. And so, what people say, other than please don’t say fuck it up, but what people actually say to me in terms of directing is less important than if, or editing is less important than where they come from. If they come from a place of respect, their direction is going to be better too.

Sarah Taylor:

Well, thank you so much, Susan, for sharing all.

Susan Shipton:

Thank you. Thank you.

Sarah Taylor:

Thanks for joining us today, and a big thank you to our panelists and moderator. A special thanks goes to Jane MacRae, Maureen Grant, and the CCE board for helping create EditCon 2020. 

 

The main title sound design was created by Jane Tattersall. Additional ADR recording by Andrea Rusch. Original music provided by Chad Blain. This episode was mixed and mastered by Tony Bao. The CCE has been supporting Indspire – an organization that provides funding and scholarships to 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 a 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.

 

[Outtro]

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

A special thanks goes to the following people for helping to create EditCon 2020

Jane MacRae

Maureen Grant

the CCE board

Animé, produit et monté par

Sarah Taylor

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Musique originale par

Chad Blain

Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 034: Timing is (Almost) Everything

The Editors Cut - Episode 034: Timing is (Almost) Everything

Episode 034: Timing is (Almost) Everything

This episode is part 3 or a 4 part series covering EditCon 2020 that took place on Saturday February 1st, 2020 at the TIFF Bell Lightbox in Toronto.

This episode is sponsored by the Canadian Film Centre.

2020 EditCon Panel 3 no script no problem on stage at TIFF

This panel explores the mechanics of making us laugh–how do you take what’s on the page and make it land? From sketch comedy to sitcoms, James Bredin, CCE from Schitt’s Creek, Marianna Khoury from Letterkenny et BaronessVon Sketch Show et Jonathan Eagan from WorkinMoms et Carter will explore what makes cutting comedy unique and particularly challenging.

À écouter ici !

The Editor’s Cut – Episode 034 – “Timing is (Almost) Everything” (EditCon 2020 Series)

 

Sarah Taylor:

This episode was generously sponsored by the Canadian Film Centre. 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 that all of us 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 those 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 deeper action.

 

Today I bring to you part three of our four part series covering EditCon 2020. It took place on Saturday, February 1st at the TIFF Bell Lightbox in Toronto.

 

Timing is almost everything. This panel will explore the mechanics of making us laugh. How do you take what’s on the page and make it land from sketch comedy to sitcoms, editors from Schitt’s Creek, Letterkenny, Baroness Von Sketch Show and more. We’ll explore what makes cutting comedy unique and particularly challenging.

 

[show open]

Maureen Grant:

So timing is almost everything. Are there golden rules to comedy? How much is technique and how much is pure magic? Our panelists have been in the trenches on all manner of comedic shows from sketch comedy to sitcoms, and we’ll find out what makes their job easy or hard. What it takes to make it land and what it takes to make people laugh. Our moderator is not only a multiple award winning standup comic and second city veteran, but a gay icon and freaking national treasure Elvira Kurt. With credits as star, host, guest, writer, story editor, and or talent director on too many shows to mention, we’re lucky to have her today. The Canadian Film Centre is pleased to welcome Elvira Kurt, James Bredin, Jonathan Eagan, and Marianna Khoury.

Elvira Kurt:

Hello, welcome this panel of rockstars here. I am here today as a comedian. That’s my tie in to be the moderator of this panel. But I’m actually here as a fan of editors in general, but a super fan of comedy editors. So I’m going to do very little talking, because they have so much knowledge to share. So before we begin, I just want to set an intention for this panel, that we are able to access all of the important skill and knowledge and craft that these people who’ve worked in the industry for so long have, that it’s received in the way that you need it to. And that you’re moved to ask questions that will satisfy your curiosity if this is something you want to pursue, or if it’s just something like me that you admire, but could never imagine yourself doing.

Elvira Kurt:

So lots of, like I said, cumulatively an incredible range of experience is sitting here in different genres of television. And I know the goal in this industry is to work. And then it would be amazing to do film, because it’s a good long period of time or some sort of a series. But I would say the epitome is to do comedy because it is something that connects with everyone. And one of the things that I noticed in the descriptions that all of you gave in these clips is what a challenge it was. I’m going to start down the line. Just briefly say your name and then we can get right to the challenge. What makes comedy so challenging? Every one of your descriptions for the clips you submitted today, we’re like, “Well, this was a particular challenge.” So I noticed that comedy while it is super easy, editing comedy must be really fucking hard.

James Bredin:

I’m James Bredin. I’ve been doing this a while and did a bunch of Schitt’s Creek and a bunch of Little Mosque on the Prairie and stuff, but that’s Schitt’s Creek we’ll be looking at today. And that was a real treat because I had no actors that I had to work around. Everybody on that show was really solid. And the challenges were in the way the scenes were shot, where the directors were trying to push the limits a bit and it worked, but you’ll see that it’s not sort of just part camera and which makes it a little trickier to put together.

Marianna Khoury:

I’m Marianna, I work on Baroness von Sketch Show, TallBoyz, which is also a sketch show. And most recently Workin’ Moms.

Elvira Kurt:

Now, James had alluded to just the challenging nature of the shows that he’s working on. What makes comedy challenging for you?

Marianna Khoury:

Working on shows like Baroness, it’s just filled with so much talent, and usually the most difficult part is deciding what to cut out because there’s so much good material. And eventually has to be a three minute sketch and that can be really difficult.

Jonathan Eagan:

My name is Jonathan Eagan. I’ve worked on three seasons of Workin’ Moms. I’ve done a couple of seasons of Letterkenny. I did a great series of short lived called What Would Sal Do? Which was my first sort of TV gig in comedy. Right now I’m working in one hour shows, which are sort of the last two shows I’ve done this year are one hour series that are really a blend of comedy and drama. And one of them has a procedural element. I think I have clips from that one as today as well. So there’s a show called Carter, starring Jerry O’Connell season two of that. And I’m working on a Netflix series right now called Ginny and Georgia, which will be, I guess, hitting Netflix in maybe April or May. I’m not entirely sure, but it’s sort of a blend of comedy and drama. I can speak to all of those.

Elvira Kurt:

And so what makes cutting comedy, editing comedy for you so challenging?

Jonathan Eagan:

I feel like what Marianna just said is probably the most challenging aspect of it is, I mean, it really depends ultimately on the nature of the show, like when you’re working in broadcast and you’re working in a broadcast half hour and you have to deliver a show that’s 21 minutes and 49 seconds long, and your scripts are 34 pages long always. And you’ve got to find the balance between this… What’s really important ultimately, there’s sometimes in a scene or a series or an episode, there’s a bit of a push and pull between the gag, the joke, the punchline, the objectively funny thing, and the season story arc, what’s happening to the characters funny or otherwise. And you have to learn to balance those what’s really priority.

Jonathan Eagan:

Oftentimes it’s not the gag per se. You can make it work, make it funny, make it emotionally resonant if… Emphasis isn’t necessarily on the gag. And I just think sometimes it’s a scene by scene thing. It’s an episodic thing. One episode is smooth sailing. The other episode might be a real pain in the ass, but might ultimately be like a better piece of television. It really, it depends on a lot of factors.

Elvira Kurt:

Well, it’s occurring to me that talking about comedy editing really sucks the comedy out of… Do you know what I mean? Like it’s so technical and yeah, what comes across is so visceral, it’s something and really is. Let’s take the things that you’re talking about so dryly, because you know what you’re saying, it’s true, but you have to actually go through it. And that is part of the skill that you build. But when you watch it, you think of none of that. It’s just like, “Oh my God, that hit me in such a way that my reaction at home by myself was to laugh out loud.” That is amazing. So let’s start, James, you talked about the first night. Why don’t we go to this show that has taken the world by storm, Schitt’s Creek and go to the… This is the first episode?

James Bredin:

Second.

Elvira Kurt:

Second. All right. So by then, you’d already understood how it works.

James Bredin:

There’s two editors. I was… My first episode.

Elvira Kurt:

Your first episode, all right. So this is season one. Is it rare that you would include this clip? Because it takes some time to get on its feet, but you say that this shot in a verite style was, had its own challenges and you ended up being pleased enough with it that you want this to be the first thing that we…

James Bredin:

I don’t think it took time to get on its feet, I think it took time for the world to catch up to it. It was the way it was rolled out, because I think it was funny right off the bat. And it was a situation we’re actually looking forward to dailies every day to say, “Well, Catherine O’Hara and Eugene Levy.” Catherine was not only incredibly funny, but she’s incredibly professional in terms of repeating everything each take and every now and then there’s an outburst of Catherine O’Hara that.. The very little improv in the show, but some of those we have to keep because they’re way too brilliant not to.

Elvira Kurt:

For sure. I want to get to… Improv is something that I’m going to touch on later, but let’s start with this clip. So this clip is Rude Awakening. It’s Episode Two of Season One of a Schitt’s Creek.

 

[Clip plays]

Elvira Kurt:

All right, so you’re given all of that raw footage and then how’d you turn it into that goal?

James Bredin:

Well, you just got to go through it as you can see that when they’re getting out of bed, it’s very dynamic. Camera’s waving all over the place. And it’s tricky to find just… That’s all there was of though of the stain on the ceiling. And it’s just trying to make it in the right place and get it on there there long enough you can tell what it is. And of course they’re talking over each other the whole time. So it’s a matter of fitting in pieces of dialogue. And there’s actually only one piece of improv in there. One line is when Catherine says… When he says, “The bed soaking wet.” And she says, “Is it blood?” That’s that’s her. That’s totally improv, not in the script, but we kept that obviously. And then it sort of calms down when it gets into the next room, but that’s sort of like a verite doc where you’re trying to find your way through the waving camera in the wherever, and just hold on long enough that you can register and the story and drama and comedy, are there.

Elvira Kurt:

Do you take the material in its raw form, you watch it and then you’re already starting to figure out why I need the ceiling, then we got to go back to the ceiling? When does the timing of it come in so that it actually helps the comedy, because it’s soaking wet, is it blood? It wouldn’t pay off if we didn’t see certain things in a certain order at a certain pace.

James Bredin:

That’s kind of hard to answer. You go through it once-

Elvira Kurt:

You’re an editor. What is your process? Don’t bogart all your knowledge.

James Bredin:

… well, you start at the beginning of the scene and you have two or three different takes to start with. Some start on her some start on him.

Elvira Kurt:

Okay, interesting. So then the choice is like, I got to start with the wet guy. Do you know what I mean? Like what… Do you put it in an order that works for you or do you stick to the script? When do you override something for your own instinct?

James Bredin:

Well, I think you go with your first steps. You have to start somewhere and that can be anything. So then you look at that and you go, “Oh, okay. That doesn’t belong there. It belongs later.” Or, “That’s not really working.” Your first pass, just sort of get the dialogue in the right place. And then trying to sort of go back and enhance it, enhance the comedy and the drama. I noticed that there was little tidbit, because they’re doing promo for the show obviously. And they were on Jimmy Fallon a couple of weeks ago. And they were asking, “What was the scene that in the whole six seasons where Eugene was most uncomfortable?” And they all agreed it was this one because he had to get his hair wet and he’s really touchy about his hair. So this is the most upsetting scene in the entire six seasons for him.

Elvira Kurt:

Amazing and nice humble brag there James. They were on Fallon and…

James Bredin:

It’s nice having your work discussed on Jimmy Fallon.

Elvira Kurt:

Of course it is. Very cool. So this one is a train from Carter and… Yeah. Oh, smile already. Okay.

James Bredin:

I gave you a bunch of clips. I didn’t know how many we’d see. So yeah, I like this one.

Elvira Kurt:

I want to get them all in [crosstalk 00:13:10] yeah, you set it up, go.

James Bredin:

Okay. Well, they asked us to choose different clips for different reasons and sort of explain why, and so it’s challenging. I chose this one because it’s a strange combination of comedy and action. This sequence was directed really beautifully by Kelly Macon. And as most of you guys know, or many of you know, television schedules can be really tight sometimes. And to do something extra is challenging. So Kelly had a couple cameras, he had a GoPro and this is effectively a sequence. It’s the cold open of an episode of Season Two of Carter where Harley… It’s a little bit of my secret identity reunion, which is cool.

James Bredin:

I can tell you about that after. Harley discovered that someone is starting to kill themselves and he has to sort of chase down a train on the tracks and sort of a high speed pursuit and board a train, very dangerously and rescue this person, get the train to stop, except it’s not at all what it sounds like.

Elvira Kurt:

Okay, cool. That’s exciting. That was much better than what I would’ve done. All right. Let’s have a look at.

 

[Clip Plays]

Elvira Kurt:

All right. So obviously an excellent premise. But really brought home with the editing there. Right? Because there was absolutely no danger. And he could have easily hopped on that train. Tell me how you made this-

Jonathan Eagan:

[crosstalk 00:16:18].

Elvira Kurt:

… yeah, how you made this so good?

Jonathan Eagan:

The truth is like, it’s funny this sequence… So this is part of an eight minute scene. After he stops the train there’s a whole 200 between the two of them and it continues forever and ever until he gets them to step off the train and then there’s a sniper trained on him and then the opening credits start. And that scene was like 10 minutes on the page. Ultimately I think this whole sequence now in the cut is like five minutes, but we had to… The original cut of it, a lot of the train stuff didn’t change to too much. But then the whole thing as a whole was just really, really big. So I wanted to choose this clip because A, sometimes the premise alone does all of the heavy lifting.

Jonathan Eagan:

That’s a terrific premise. And Kelly had the great idea to include the GoPro, which gave it like, you don’t approach a scene like that like a typical… You’re not looking at it at the same way you look at your average comedy scene, you get to… I was lucky that I got to play with that as though I was cutting an action film as well and sort of use that shorthand as a means to cut it. And then by taking that somewhat seriously it can enhance the comedy of it because it amplifies how ridiculous it is. So it was really a lot of fun. Ultimately it just came down to making it shorter and tighter and so on and so forth.

Elvira Kurt:

So was the intent clear from the go that it was meant to be a light take on this genre right?

Jonathan Eagan:

To an extent, yeah. On the page I think it was like that, but I did… It wasn’t until I got the footage that I realized exactly Kelly’s approach. And then he and I had a quick conversation after that and it was very clear. But one thing I would say about this, this sort of added layers of complexity that train conductor that was really his day to day job. That was what he did. He wasn’t an actor. He was that guy doing that every day in that place. And that’s how he dressed. And so we had to… He couldn’t like… They shot the shit out of him to try and get him to deliver his lines. He never quite did. So all of his lines are ADR’ed.

Elvira Kurt:

Oh my God, he looks amazing. That guy looks like a star.

Jonathan Eagan:

Sometimes you have just a little thread that you need to pull on to make it work. And so the last shot of that sequence, he’s smiling, is just him looking at the director. We were able to manufacture it, such that he was trying to extort more money out of Harley. He had more agency. Whereas that wasn’t something that was a part of how it was shot. So like that was a little happy accident. Things like that really help. You never know you’re going to get those things, but when you do you try to use them as much as you can.

Elvira Kurt:

All right, man, you guys really downplay what you do. I get that you have to work with the, whoever’s sitting in the room with you, but there is still something about-

Jonathan Eagan:

You’re absolutely right.

Elvira Kurt:

… like your experience.

Jonathan Eagan:

The hell with it.

Elvira Kurt:

You know what I mean?

Jonathan Eagan:

It was all me.

Elvira Kurt:

Like let’s be real. You’ve got to be, “You know what, no, I know that we need another shot. We need another of the GoPro. We need another of the coupling thing.” Because there’s no tension in the scenes. Literally a child could stop this thing, do you know what I mean?

Jonathan Eagan:

I’m telling you this though, if you’d seen my first edit of that scene, you’d probably have been like, “Dude, that is five minutes too long.”

Elvira Kurt:

Sure. But that’s the whole point of us not seeing the first thing, right? That’s your starting point. And then you just start-

Jonathan Eagan:

[crosstalk 00:19:25].

Elvira Kurt:

… culling, to just tighten, to hone the comedy. And that’s where… The reason this panel is sold out, I’m sure is because this… It’s that intangible. And I think you were the one who mentioned it in the green room, that thing that like, how do you know the exact pacing that is going to put this over the top from just great premise, solid lines into this tight sequence that is genuinely hilarious. And then that beautiful found object of dudes smile because he obviously wouldn’t be able to do that on his own. Like you made it seem he was part in on it. Yeah. Anyway, that was great. Okay. Marianna is going to talk to us about the Baroness. I definitely let you set it up, but I will… Full disclosure, I’ve worked on the show. So I’ve seen a lot of the sketches in all these clips.

Elvira Kurt:

I was there for some of them at the idea stage and then to see what the finished product looks like. I mean, that’s always the fun of watching Baroness is where it ended up in a script, what it looks like. And especially this one, which is a Meredith clip because you can’t actually write down all the things Meredith is going to do once she’s allowed to… The free reign with her physicality. And because they’re all equally in their own way, each of the Baronesses is also really adept at physicality. The fact that they’re all in the scene and commenting on someone that it must on some level bring up some insecurities or jealousy that someone is getting a moment to shine when you know that your version of that would be just as good, not the same, but just as good.

Elvira Kurt:

But you have to sort of play either the straight man or the second banana to this person, who’s getting to cut loose. And the fact that they’re there and then all the little lines that they’re doing, I don’t know how much of that was ad-lib, but that is… All of those ad-lib lines are coming from that place of, “There goes Meredith.” You know what I mean? Like it’s a mixture of generous and admiration and also a little bit of, I wish that was me. Like it can’t not be as a performer. All right. What else can you tell us about this clip?

Marianna Khoury:

Yeah. Also it’s a commitment to being a background character in a sketch that someone is the lead in and they’ll go as far as like creating crazy backstories for a background character that might not even be getting a closeup in the scene and they’re committing so much. And it’s so hard to cut that stuff out because ultimately it doesn’t always pay to the storytelling and you have to lose some of it, but it’s so amazing what they all give.

Elvira Kurt:

It’s true. And a lot of that has to do with the hair and then the wardrobe, right? You put someone in something and a character comes out that they may not have even had in mind until they are getting to be in that character. So it’s different than these other two shows where you have these set characters and that you get to work and grow, and stretch them out and make them flex different muscles. In your work it’s particularly challenging because there are always different. And then as you say, because they’re each of them so into their craft, they’re adding these weird backstories that you don’t make… That nobody would even notice or care about. All right. So this is an excellent clip. She Did It. It is really good. I can’t wait to hear how you’ve made this come to life. All right. Let’s have a look.

 

[Clip Plays]

Elvira Kurt:

Where do you begin?

Marianna Khoury:

Well, Meredith is a nut and she goes crazy. And there’s so many options in the edit. And usually on these kinds of physical sketches, we’re editing them for a long time. It’s really just grading a selects timeline and picking out all of your favourite stuff and going from there. A lot of it’s just instinct and feeling and watching absolutely everything they do, and just choosing what makes you laugh and hoping that that’s the right choice.

Elvira Kurt:

So there’s one shot of the whole scene so that you have everyone in it. And then do they actually shoot it enough times to get an isolated shot on everybody?

Marianna Khoury:

Yeah. Alicia Young directed this one and it was amazing. So it’s a lot of like roaming cameras to pick up that stuff. So once they go through it in a wide, they kind of can feel the pacing and know… It’s like a call and response kind of thing.

Elvira Kurt:

Besides the literal call and response.

Marianna Khoury:

Yeah.

Elvira Kurt:

Okay. All right. So it’s so frenetic and the fact that the show, unlike with the more structured half hour or hour length, you have a time, the entire episode is 21, 22 minutes?

Marianna Khoury:

Yeah, 21:15.

Elvira Kurt:

So the running order for each show, how do you know that this scene or skit or sketch is going to be three minutes long? Like, because you said that it’s so much longer, what was the original?

Marianna Khoury:

Probably the assembly I sent her it would have been like seven minutes or something.

Elvira Kurt:

And typically there, because I know they shoot things and write things specifically for blackouts less than a minute. So this is obviously a longer scene, but nothing is beyond three, four? It depends.

Marianna Khoury:

Four and a half.

Elvira Kurt:

Yeah.

Marianna Khoury:

Yeah. And the sketches they never exist in within an episode until picture lock. So when we start editing, you can just pick a sketch. There’s like three to four editors and we just get to pick whatever we’re in the mood for, and whatever’s been shot and just start cutting. And those sketches exist as solo sketches up until picture lock. So during the picture lock process is when the Baronesses and CBC will decide on the running order and what sketch goes into what episode.

Elvira Kurt:

And then who are you sitting with? It’s not the whole cast? I mean, because they have an interest in making sure, right? Like this is something, this is true of performers. And so when you have performers who are showrunners, I imagine it’s worse. Because you know you can trust your sense of comedy, right? Like when I’m doing standup and I’m on my own, I am in charge of the whole thing. It’s very difficult to then hand it over even to the best editor and think that they can do it the way that you saw it in your mind. And no matter how well it’s shot, it’s still never going to be exactly how you thought it would look. So you’re already compromising from the get go when you have to sit with one of the people who’s in it. So is it everybody or is it just… Is this Meredith scene, so Meredith sits in on it?

Marianna Khoury:

Yes, exactly. So they divide it. They may be have about 30 to 40 sketches per season that they’re kind of in charge of and see-through from the writing process to the editing process. And then we have this cool thing we do on the show called All-ins where it’s all the Baronesses, the whole editing team and producers. And it’s like a show and tell day. So we’ve worked up to a certain point. We haven’t sent anything to CBC yet. And then we just get to sit down and be in a room with people, which is quite exciting because we’re just in a cave, and we just sit down and enjoy it. We watch TV and enjoy what we’re working on. And that’s one of the most important parts of the process on that show.

Elvira Kurt:

Yeah. I agree. Like getting to make your immediate circle of your editing family laugh is immensely gratifying. So yeah, that’s a great part of it. We will talk more about all the things. We are jumping genres and styles, but I do want to move through it all. James, we’re going to go back to you. The next clip that we’re going to see is is also a Schitt’s Creek. And it will try to make sure that what we discuss in this pass is about shots. And that’s something that you singled this scene out for. This is Makeup. So tell me what was your feelings about this one or why you pick this one?

James Bredin:

well, again, it’s unusual coverage. It takes place in a trailer. If you follow the show, Moira used to be a soap star and a hasn’t been in the business for a long time and a local vintner wants to use her in his wine commercial. And she’s very excited, but she’s also tremendously nervous. And this is what’s takes place in the makeup trailer, which is very confined space. So the actual shots that the director did are quite unusual.

Elvira Kurt:

I know you can’t answer this. Why go into a cramped trailer when you could just recreate this set? I mean, I know that this is a Canadian show business. Probably someone was living in the trailer. So was on hand, but do you know what I mean? Like why put yourself… Why make it harder?

James Bredin:

That’s interesting because on this show and Little Mosque, Colin Brunton, the line producer, he likes to do all the interiors and then go on location. So the shows are big holes in your show episodes and the location for the shooting, the wine commercial was all location and they have a Winnebago and some of it takes place outside the Winnebago where she’s in there weeping later on. So I guess they decided that they were going to do it as opposed to building a little set thing they decided to do it in there at the trailer.

Elvira Kurt:

So they could get all the different shots, make your life easier, but nobody thinks about the editor. Do they? Nobody. You’re on your own.

James Bredin:

Do not think that was one of their concerns.

Elvira Kurt:

Shame. All right. Anything else you want to say about it or let’s [crosstalk 00:31:15]?

James Bredin:

Yeah. Well, it’s a real challenge and it’s different kind of humor of, again, she’s really nervous and Johnny is trying to control everything and it’s not going well, and well, you’ll see what happens.

Elvira Kurt:

All right. Let’s have a look.

 

[Clip plays]

Elvira Kurt:

So understated the performances there. When they do that, because it is so confining, them making themselves smaller that way, does it make it harder to find the comedy in the scene?

James Bredin:

I don’t think so. Their model was Andy Griffith Show where it’s all about the characters and-

Elvira Kurt:

Sorry, Andy Griffith was a show. James and I are clearly the same demographic, but I have the audience they don’t know what you’re talking about grandpa.

James Bredin:

Ron Howard was very young at one time.

Elvira Kurt:

Sorry. So it was like Andy Griffith, which was a good oldie timie?

James Bredin:

Yeah. And it wasn’t jokes so much as comedy coming out of the the characters and what they were doing. And they sort of wanted to keep it small like that. And it had to come out of the characters. And when she tells him to leave, go home, like just the way he’s, he plays it so well.

Elvira Kurt:

He does. Now, did you… And your choice of it, it was perfect. So was there another option and you…

James Bredin:

There might’ve been. There was multiple takes and it was tricky to play which shots are going to work best in the mirror shot and which were best going to work straight on. And then later on there’s singles on both of them for their intimate conversation. Again, the two little improvs from Catherine there the, “I know John, you’re very good at trying.” That’s not in the script. And at the very end where she says, “No, but please keep working.” That’s just her. And yeah. I just leave those in and everyone agrees that there’s no discussion. It’s like, obviously those are going to stay.

Jonathan Eagan:

It’s funny how sometimes those are the best things about the scene. Those lines are the funniest part of the scene.

James Bredin:

Yeah. Well, that’s her. She’s the tent pole of the whole thing.

Elvira Kurt:

For sure. And it’s often when the scene is meant to end, if you just leave the camera, there is that you’re in that place, you’re in a zone, and sometimes gold will come out and sometimes mostly not, but it’s great when it happens. Now, I also notice that when in the moment of the cheese tray, we don’t see Cubby at all. So you really just focusing on the cheese again, was this because you wanted to tighten the scene of… I found it interesting, person enters. We’ve never really get a sense of who they are because the joke is about something else. And it was all to just keep us focused on the two of them on their dynamic. Even Crystal, when she she comes in to be in between them. You know what I mean? Like all of it is a physicality that is in addition to what’s written. And that is something that you consciously chose to put together in that way.

James Bredin:

Yeah. I think that’s largely to the director too, because Jerry Ciccoritti did both those clips we’ve seen. There isn’t a shot of the PA. He’s a PA, so nobody cares about him.

Elvira Kurt:

Right.

James Bredin:

And that’s all… All you see of him is coming in the door, and the cheese. I didn’t leave anything out there. I didn’t have a choice of making more of his character and we don’t need to see him. You’re right. It’s not important.

Elvira Kurt:

But he even calls him Cubby. You know what I mean? Like to me, it’s sort of it emphasized, it was calling attention to the negative space in a way, right? Like this I’ll name you, but I don’t even want to see you because really it’s about the cheese, about the melon, it’s about trying to make my wife feel as insecure as possible. So it is interesting. I’m glad you included this clip because it is really small. And yet the comedy is never lost. It doesn’t ever go away anywhere.

Elvira Kurt:

Mentioning the choices between which shots to use of the mirror shots, and this is a question to all of you to keep in mind when it comes to it, is it your amount of experience that will dictate which call to make? Like how long does it take you to put something like this together and is it your extensive experience that right away, you’re like, “Nope, I want to see them from this angle.” Like looking into the mirror as opposed to looking through the mirror? Do you know what I mean? Because that will make it stronger.

James Bredin:

That’s sometimes it’s done for you in that they blow the next line. You [crosstalk 00:37:25].

Elvira Kurt:

You make the best of what you’ve got.

James Bredin:

Not that there’s a lot of that, but it happens. Sometimes you just stay a little too long on something, the energy in comedy dissipates. So then you want to cut around. Yeah.

Elvira Kurt:

This is the intangible. How do you know that it dissipates? Is it you watching it? You’re like, “Nah, I’m not as connected to it.” Is that what it is? Like, what is it about… What about your own sense of humor affects the choices that you make?

James Bredin:

I think, yeah, it is experience and that it is that… Yeah, I feel it’s deflating, so I want to move. Could have done that as well 15 years ago, would not have done as a good job.

Elvira Kurt:

Practice. So it’s practice?

James Bredin:

Yeah.

Elvira Kurt:

And making mistakes would you say, or trying it a different way?

James Bredin:

Yeah. And the director gets a bash at it and says, “That stinks.” And you go, “Oh, well, maybe you’re right.” And then Eugene and Dan are all over it. And if no one bumps on what you’ve done, then you’ve done it right. And yeah, it’s a feel. It’s a feeling thing.

Elvira Kurt:

Right.

Jonathan Eagan:

I think if you approach it the very same way you would approach watching something at home and deciding whether or not you want to watch the next episode again, or whether or not you think it’s working. If there’s a show that you think is really, really funny, it might… Oftentimes it’s pretty easy to explain why, but there’s an intangible there as well. And I feel like I’ve always sort of felt like it is hard to explain. I think that we all have a sense of humor. They all differ. Comedy’s very subjective. And the only thing I can rely on all the time is my own instinct. You have to trust your own instinct, whether something is working. If it’s working for you, it’s probably going to change 25 times anyway. But yeah, you just sort of trust that if it’s working for you, it is going to work for somebody else.

Jonathan Eagan:

And there is more than one way. This joke may change a little bit. This beat may change a little bit. You might try five different things and arrived back at what you had in the first place as part of the process. But if you can’t trust your own guts… Especially when you’re working in television, because the schedule is really tight. Somebody explained it to me years ago before I was anywhere near working in TV, he was cutting a one hour series and he explained to me at the time it seemed impossible.

Jonathan Eagan:

Much the way working in unscripted television seems impossible to me today. But you’ve got so little time sometimes that you just have to go into the bed and you have to say, “All right, well, I’ve watched the master of this scene. I’ve seen the coverage. This is what I’m going to do here. And I want a close up here. I’m going to go to this character here.” You’re just basically your first pass is really just the way you’d write the first draft on a blank page. You just get it down and you get it down in some structural way, because you have an instinctual idea of what you want to see. So I want this here. Do we have it? Yes, we do. Well, let’s try it. And then you’ve got your blueprint.

Elvira Kurt:

I hear you. But I will also say that after you’ve watched it 20 times, at some point, do you lose? Like, “Is this funny? I can’t tell.”

Jonathan Eagan:

You don’t laugh. I mean, you go through a period of time where you don’t laugh at all and your brain turns to jelly. And then as you’re like exiting the tunnel and you can see the light at the end of the tunnel, you start to laugh again. I mean, at some point that’s when it really helps for other people to see it. You know, at the end of the day, you want someone else to laugh. So you rely on your producers and other people. And if you’re making your show runners laugh and they’re really happy, then you start to better understand what it is they like to, because that’s back to that subjective thing. I might think something is hilarious and they might come in and say, “Great job. Let’s change it.” Actually that’s every day.

Elvira Kurt:

Right. It’s nice that they start with criticism sandwich.

Jonathan Eagan:

[crosstalk 00:41:09] criticism sandwich. Very important nutrition.

Elvira Kurt:

For sure. All right, Marianna, you’re nodding through this whole thing. Tell me about how your sense of humor helps you? Because it is the thing that’s entitled… We all think everyone in this room is smart. And if you believe that you’re intelligent, then your sense of humor is there, right? To me, the least interesting people are the ones that have no sense of humor. And I think they’re idiots. So given that we’re all starting from the same page, right? But then it is this subjective thing, how do you approach your work with your sense of humor?

Marianna Khoury:

I think watching live comedy is really helpful. I spent a long time just going to the comedy bar every weekend, and that was such a smooth transition to going to Baroness, because I feel like that show is really representative of the comedy community here. There’s this comedian, Mark Andrada who also runs lights and sound at comedy bar and watching his live timing of live editing comedy and improv, I feel like taught me everything I know.

Elvira Kurt:

Wow. Okay. All right. Well let’s let’s keep moving. Every one of you deserves a panel just of your own, just FYI. I’m among legends. So let’s move on to Nudists and this is also from Carter and it is a good segue from this idea of your own instinct guiding your editing process. And I wish this was something that we could just lay hands and all sort of plug in to the flow of how this unknowable thing happens, but you singled this out.

Jonathan Eagan:

Yeah. I picked this one because editorially it’s very… I mean, there’s a rhythm to it obviously, but it’s really basic. It’s a two hander. It’s two people who happen to be naked, standing in a kitchen at a nudist colony, having a conversation. Carter is a bit of a metal show like Harley is a private investigator, but he used to be a television detective. So he believes like he comes back to his small town, was shot at North Bay, comes back to this town called Bishop for those who don’t know the show. And he just basically becomes a private investigator and believes that all of his experience on television shows will inform how he can solve crimes and stuff. And because of the magic of television, he is terrific at it. But there’s a meta aspect to a Hollywood aspect to a lot of the shows sometimes like an added layer on top of it, which is really cool.

Jonathan Eagan:

And so in this one, that was a bit of a film noir, femme fatale aspect to it as it began because this mysterious woman comes to meet him at a diner and tells him that her fiance… She believes her fiance murdered in spite of the fact that seemed like natural causes. So then he goes to meet her and she’s naked and she lives in a nudist colony and she didn’t tell him. So now they’re there. And so he gets his psychic Dave to get nude. He remains clothed throughout the episode, but Dave has to bite the bullet and be naked to ingratiate himself to other people in that community. So they’re like trying to find the killer and to get the information and they are at the wake, there’s people everywhere. They’re all naked, but Harley. And Dave is being hit on by this woman who he believes to be this man’s possible suspect’s wife.

Jonathan Eagan:

When an actual fact, that guy is an accountant for the mob who just happens to be in witness protection. And she’s his handler. So she has no business. She’s a single and she’s like really into Dave. And so the scene is just the two of them. Dave’s kind of like deflecting her, but what’s interesting about the scene is they did this little ad-lib that completely made the scene in my opinion. And we loved it and we kept it. Editorially it’s very simple, but it’s just a great example of how an improv can do wonders for a scene, elevate it.

 

[Clip plays]

Jonathan Eagan:

Yeah, thank you. So the line that was the big improv was, he says she died in a fire and then she says, “Whoa.” And he says, “It’s okay. She was a horrible person.” And then she says, “Serves her right.”

Elvira Kurt:

As the biggest throw away ever. I mean, it was on an exhale and everything. Do you know what I mean? Like you could have easily have missed it, but it’s perfect.

Jonathan Eagan:

Yeah. But that line to me was like the funniest thing I heard all summer. And I’m a weird sense of humor, I guess I don’t know. But I was like, “We have to use that line.” And they were like, “Sure, whatever you want, man.”

Elvira Kurt:

No, it was a great call. It’s just delicious. And especially because she’s moving in like physically, right? Like, do you know what I mean? Like there, “Yes. Oh so…”

Jonathan Eagan:

One episode.

Elvira Kurt:

Yeah, it felt very claustrophobic just… And you didn’t have the luxury obviously of a wide shot? Like this was all…

Jonathan Eagan:

That’s true. There wasn’t, it was just the two of us. Well, there was the wide and the tighter one. So there’s four shots. Each of them has like a medium close and a medium. And that’s it. The reason they did that sort of time crunch schedule wise-

Elvira Kurt:

[crosstalk 00:47:18] nakedness.

Jonathan Eagan:

… well, yes, that of course. But there’s not even a two shot because this… Tight quarters and everything that scene as part of like, there’s like three or four or five scenes within different parts of the wake. So they go elsewhere, they come back, et cetera. So it wasn’t like, I guess they didn’t deem the necessity of a two shot… Well, no, but the nudity, of course yes, two shot. Well, throughout the episode, people are blurred. So just in that case, it wasn’t required but anyway.

Elvira Kurt:

And again, this follows from James clip. Again, it’s very tight and it’s just a back and forth.

Jonathan Eagan:

It’s an interesting thing to be both nude and claustrophobic at the same time. You feel very exposed and you know.

Elvira Kurt:

Yeah. But the choices of going back and forth like that again, there’s that the rhythm, the pacing.

Jonathan Eagan:

Yeah. I guess that’s a good example of when it’s really largely about rhythm and you’re just trying to figure out… It’s like a tennis match, you know? So you don’t want it to be too cutty. You’ve got to get the rhythm right. You kind of got to tune the instrument, so it’s in tune and then it works for you. I mean, it might not work for everyone. You know, some people might feel like it’s too cutty, but with comedy you can really get away with that.

Elvira Kurt:

Yes you can. But then you’ve also got that jaunty music to [crosstalk 00:48:29], does it distract you or does… Do you know from the cuttiness, say?

Jonathan Eagan:

Maybe I would imagine that it helps.

Elvira Kurt:

Or that it helps, right?

Jonathan Eagan:

Yeah. Sometimes a scene can be just so much funnier when it’s played completely dry, but in this case, this a whole sequence that, that music sort of carried us. Because it was a bit of a roller coaster. We’re ping-ponging there, but we’re also ping-ponging elsewhere in the party and like Harley… The very next shot Harley and Dave come together, they speak. Kevin McDonald from kids in the hall was there as well. And then they’d bounce off to another part of the party. So it was all just a bit of a carnival. So that was a… We used a lot of actually Ocean’s Eleven music as temp through this series because of Harley’s sort of Hollywood background. And then the composers didn’t mimic it, but that was a huge inspiration. So it has that quality to it.

Elvira Kurt:

Cool, this idea that Jonathan wanted to include this clip because of that one great improv. You talked about your editing being informed by live comedy. But one of the great things that comedy TV editor gets to do, or an editor of a comedy of any sort is play with the genre. And that’s what this clip… Please tell us a little bit more about that and why this was a pick for you.

Marianna Khoury:

Yeah, that’s the exciting part of sketch because it’s like full ADD brain. You just work on something and then you’re onto the next thing. And you’re you have new characters and you’re in new worlds. And this one in particular is really fun. It’s like a scifi genre. So you get to play with music and sound design and yeah.

 

[Clip plays]

Speaker 16:

You got to sign off on the speech from the UN. Yes ma’am. Are you sure about the translation software? Sure as wherever we’re going to be. This better work. Madam chancellor, Dr. Jones, we’ve made contact. [inaudible 00:50:18]. Let’s make [inaudible 00:50:30]. Greeting new friends. We, the people of earth are honored to be making contact with beings from beyond our own planet for the very first time. The most important message humanity can express to you at this time is, could you come back a little later? It’s just not a great time right now. We’re just not totally feeling ready to meet. We still trying to work some stuff out of the species, or humanity is in a bit of an awkward phase right now, embarrassing really. embarrassing. That’s the word. Thank you. Yeah, it’s embarrassing.

Speaker 16:

So maybe, I don’t know, we’re going to come back in about 500 years. Something like that. Actually, according to my projections, we’re going to need at least 1000 years. Okay. You know what? Let’s make it 1000. Let’s call it a cool thao. Okay. Then we’ll see you then. [inaudible 00:52:02]. Yeah. Hey, listen. You know, there’s just no point in getting in a new relationship if you still got your own stuff to work on. 100%. Anyway. Who wants to go for drinks, Nico? All right [inaudible 00:52:11]. Yeah. What a relief. I wasn’t into it either, but you always think you’re the one that’s messed up. Just self improvement takes time. That was so impressive. I really appreciated that honesty. Well, I don’t know what you would like to get home and just put my technicals up. I’m really hungry. At least we got our steps in. I feel really good.

Elvira Kurt:

So I do also know with these girls that they are allowed per season or per episode very few of these high concept, right? Because it starts to spin out of control, like all of the different aspects that are brought into it. So it is, that’s clear that this was this bigger, higher concept, but a very simple idea of the joke I can see it being pitched in the room. It’s like, “Yeah, so we meet aliens. It’s a bad time. And it’s a relationship thing.” Like it’s all those things together, but then you get the stuff that doesn’t have any of that in it. How do you turn it into this?

Marianna Khoury:

This one was exciting because normally a lot of those sketches are really fast paced and this had like a slow tension build. And I think I’ve found the soundtrack and the sound design before even fully doing the assembly. So yeah, a lot of the pacing is based off of that. I don’t normally do that.

Elvira Kurt:

Okay. Tell me more about that. And watching it, did you think, “Oh, I don’t know what to do. Let’s start with the music.” Do you know what I mean? Or immediately you watched it and you were like, “I need the music first.”

Marianna Khoury:

Yeah. I think just to feel the space, we didn’t have the VFX of that glowing orb thing in the back yet. So the sound helped just feel like we were in that world and believe that we were there and it really helps it’s the slow long walk up so we can break the tension and reveal the joke.

Elvira Kurt:

Right. And do you… In the way that Jonathan said, like you have the movie reference already that music, was this like, “It’s going to be like Stranger Things or Arrival, do you know? And you start thinking of that.

Marianna Khoury:

Arrival soundtrack-wise I was looking for music that sounded “wahhhhh”

Elvira Kurt:

And so you lay that down first and then does it suddenly help? Oh, with this tension means this is where I’ve got to use a shot where there’s zooming in a little bit.

Marianna Khoury:

Yeah.

Elvira Kurt:

I don’t want to tell you.

Marianna Khoury:

I don’t know if this is a pretty simple one. It was really [crosstalk 00:54:34]-

Elvira Kurt:

Oh, is it? Anybody can do it. Why are we even here??

Marianna Khoury:

The sound and music were the biggest part of this one for me.

Elvira Kurt:

All right. Okay. So with that, the sound and music, I mean, what I love about this clip that we’re going back to you, James, it’s another Schitt’s Creek. It’s the town sign. It’s sweet. Like the visuals are all there. So then you have… Again with the sound is that it’s consistent you have a library just of Schitt’s Creek music. Do you know what I mean? When does that enter for you?

James Bredin:

There’s very little score. Yeah, they’ve very little music in that show at all.

Elvira Kurt:

So you can’t hide in a way, right? Like, and then it’s all the comedy out there?

James Bredin:

Yeah. And it’s a deliberate choice obviously.

Elvira Kurt:

Yeah, for sure.

James Bredin:

And it’s just little sweetening here and there because they want everything else to be strong. And it’s just a matter of like little-

Elvira Kurt:

Well-placed.

James Bredin:

… yeah.

Elvira Kurt:

And again, this is something that your many years has taught you when it needs something?

James Bredin:

Well, I’d like to say that, but it’s generally there’s no music, unless there’s some source thing in a cafe or a dance or something, there’s a party it’s cut without any music at all. And they may add like very little ever.

Elvira Kurt:

Okay. So town sign then… Again, it’s very shot heavy. I feel like it as when we see it or if people know [crosstalk 00:56:06].

James Bredin:

Yeah. it’s sort of more conventional directing. Cut it like you would cut any dramatic scene. It’s a-

Elvira Kurt:

Tell me more about that. Where’s the overlap between comedy and drama?

James Bredin:

… it’s the difference in the writing. This could be a completely straight scene of them wanting to repaint the sign and okay, “We’ll just repaint it.” Not funny at all. And so there’s nothing really in the directing that is specifically comedic. The timing is when you want to go from the two guys to over the shoulder of the sign. And that was sort of the challenge of this scene is when to most effectively use the actual picture.

Elvira Kurt:

Okay, excellent. So then let’s watch the clip and then come back to this because that is… Again, I’m trying to… What is it about comedy that makes it so specialized? And again, that not everyone can do where that it takes a lot longer to learn how to do well, then say film editing, which has you say it could be the script or whatever. And then it’s not just the fact that Schitt’s Creek is called a comedy show that that suddenly the editing is going to be done in a certain way that elicits comedy, it’s more than that. And so let’s see if we can understand more about what you mean after we’ve seen the clip.

 

[Clip plays]

James Bredin:

Lots of music in that.

Elvira Kurt:

Well, that was meant to get us through there. Thanks for bringing that back. But I can see that the well-placed shot of going back, that is everything that tips into comedy constantly.

James Bredin:

Yeah. That’s sort of the comedy. The biggest technical challenge of that scene was for Walt the colorist at Red Lab, because that sky was changing by the second and the lighting in TV shot is different and you would not know by doing that, but that put a lot of work into that. And there was a lot of-

Jonathan Eagan:

how did he change the sign? What happens to the sign?

James Bredin:

He sticks up another sign on top that says, “Don’t worry. It’s his sister.”

Elvira Kurt:

Roland fixed it for you. Jonathan quickly set us up.

Jonathan Eagan:

Okay. I chose this clip just because it was actually a kind of a challenge, also another really long scene that we had to make tighter and make choices. There’s actually a whole bunch of stuff going on. There’s some VFX of stitching together, three different wide shots to make one wide shot work for continuity. There’s great ad-libs from Katherine, who is unbelievable in that respect, especially when she’s writing, directing, showrunning, acting all at the same time. It’s pretty remarkable. And we can speak to it after the fact.

Elvira Kurt:

Okay. Cool. All right. Let’s get to it.

 

[Clip plays]

Jonathan Eagan:

So, yeah, that’s the first scene of season three. At the end of season two, she catches her husband cheating on her with her best friend’s nanny. He doesn’t know that she’s seen it. And then she goes home and discovered she’s pregnant. And then she decides to have the baby that’s the reveal of that. So it was really interesting scene, because like the way it was initially set up, it was a lot longer. Val who’s tremendous, the class leader, she had a whole bit about how those photos behind her were like, “These babies are from my vagina.” And like all this really great stuff that was so good, but it was just too long a scene and we had to make choices. And so ultimately it came down to story choices and there was also a means of getting into the scene initially the plan so that we reveal Katherine is pregnant.

Jonathan Eagan:

Whereas now you sort of see it right away and there’s a lot going on that scene. Yeah, so one of those wides were bowels there and the two of them are in the foreground, but we had all kinds of continuity issues. We got into this situation on Workin’ Moms where I kind of got away with murder because Adam at Red Lab, the online editor was right next door to me. And he was really fantastic at like stitching together shots in the online and saving us, having to do it in via fax. It still costs money, but a lot less money. And like when I found out that that was the case, they let me do it like 45 times. So it was like a David Fincher movie a lot of the time. We were combining takes. And if the continuity wasn’t right, I would just dupe the same shot and combine the takes.

Jonathan Eagan:

And then Adam would take care of it. And then eventually they were like, “John, you have to stop doing that. It’s costing too much money.” But that was an example of it. We really needed it to make the scene work. We had like the women on the left were one shot. Val was another, they were third. And we really couldn’t make that pivotal moment work without. And then the whole Canary bit. I’m pretty sure that was an ad-lib if I remember correctly, but it just brings up… So what Katherine does often, and a lot of comedies do this is, Katherine will be… She’s head writer and the showrunner. She’s always on set. She directs many episodes. She directed this one. So she’s in the scene, on camera directing the scene and also the showrunner. So at times there’s no qualms on that show about her saying, “Let me do that again.”

Jonathan Eagan:

And she’ll start if it’s her coverage or she’ll say to someone, if it’s their coverage or she’ll say, “Give me that again,” or, “Just do that again.” She’ll just stop the scene… Rather than stop and cut and reset, she’ll stop the scene and she’ll say, “Give me it this way.” She’ll run off four or five different options right there and then, and then they’ll move on in the take. And it’s terrific. You just know exactly where it is and you can find it. So she did a bunch of different versions of the canary stuff and like the poop stuff. And we just had a host of really great options and they just had fun with it. They riffed for two minutes and then moved on and then we had a plethora of really great stuff to use, and we landed with that on that.

Elvira Kurt:

So you cheat and she made you look good. That’s the takeaway?

Jonathan Eagan:

That’s right.

Elvira Kurt:

Okay. That’s good to know for the future, so you can always have the guy next door, cost you money. And then somebody who takes care of all the shots, but what a luxury for you. Yeah, that’s great, lots to play with.

Jonathan Eagan:

Because they come to trust you. They let you get away with that stuff.

Elvira Kurt:

You’re right.

Jonathan Eagan:

There’s a moral to that story.

Elvira Kurt:

There’s a moral. Thank you for pointing it out. Did you want to say something Marianna?

Marianna Khoury:

They love doing that. I started working on Workin’ Moms this year and-

Jonathan Eagan:

Cool.

Marianna Khoury:

… it’s their favorite thing to do now [crosstalk 01:04:48] there’s this cool thing, Jonathan taught me.

Elvira Kurt:

Amazing. You’re a legend. Amazing. Now what I love on any kind of comedy when it gets authentic. So this storyline as you said you deferred a lot of the editing to serve the story, even though there was this other great extraneous stuff. and that you have to… What makes the funny funnier is when you have the contrast of the hardness of the truth. I cheated.

Jonathan Eagan:

Yeah, sure.

Elvira Kurt:

There’s pregnancy that she’s got to deal with. I’m using this as a segue to the final clip, which is the Unfounded, easily the most difficult, right? And I would say that having been in the writer’s room, there was a lot on Baroness that you would want to sort of tap into the zeitgeist, and then realize we actually were not smart enough to do this in a way that it serves the comedy and makes the point. And I think this is an exception. This had to have a warning before the actual scene. Is there anything else you want to say before we set it up?

Marianna Khoury:

No, let’s play it.

 

[Clip plays]

Elvira Kurt:

That was amazing, well done.

Marianna Khoury:

That’s a hard sketch to edit and it’s constantly balancing that line of being very angry and emotional and Aurora playing that character so grounded and keeping on us on that side of this, the hurt and anger and frustration. And then having the side with Meredith and Jen that keeps the comedy going and is getting out all of the information. And we found we would be holding on Aurora for a while and it would get too sad and it was too difficult to watch it. It didn’t feel like it was comedy anymore. So it was a while of working on that one and figuring out what the right balance was so that it felt right at the end.

Elvira Kurt:

Yeah. There was all of everything that you have been saying, all three of you have been saying all along, all coming into play in that one scene. And I think, unfortunately that is a good place to stop so that we can actually have some questions. so let’s get to it. Thank you guys. You’re so wise.

Jonathan Eagan:

Thank you very much.

Elvira Kurt:

From the house who has something to ask anybody? Yes, go ahead.

Audience:

So I have a question for Mariana about TallBoyz. So TallBoyz was originally stage based sketch comedy. So I was wondering having that context of like being originally based on stage work, how has that impacted your editing and what are the original kind of TallBoyz members were involved in kind of the timing or the editing and stuff?

Marianna Khoury:

Oh yeah. They were definitely involved. Yeah. It was pretty similar to Baroness in that you’re able… And Workin’ Moms, actually all the jobs I’ve had, usually the stars of the show are quite involved the whole way through which can be a good thing, but also sometimes they’re willing to cut things that they’re in and I’m like, “No, you can’t cut it. I love this part so much.” And it’s kind of your job as the editor to be that cheerleader for them a little bit. Yeah. TallBoyz was great. The big difference with that show is that the sketches did exist within an episode already. So, and they had a bit of a throughline in each act. So it was a bit more contained than how we work on Baroness.

Elvira Kurt:

So the one question was about a show we didn’t talk about. I cannot thank you enough. I literally could sit here for another three hours and just shoot the shit about this stuff. So deep is the bench of knowledge here. Let’s give it up for James and Marianna and Jonathan, thank you all so much and have an excellent keynote this afternoon. Take care.

Sarah Taylor:

Thanks for joining us today and a big thank you to our panelists and moderator. A special thanks goes to Jane MacRae, Maureen Grant, and the CCE Board for helping create EditCon 2020.

 

The main title sound design was created by Jane Tattersall. Additional ADR recording by Andrea Rusch. Original music provided by Chad Blain. This episode was mixed and mastered by Tony Bao. The CCE has been supporting Indspire – an organization that provides funding and scholarships to 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 a 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.

 

[Outtro]

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.

Canadian Film Centre Logo

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

A special thanks goes to the following people for helping to create EditCon 2020

Jane MacRae

Maureen Grant

The Canadian Film Centre

the CCE board

Animé, produit et monté par

Sarah Taylor

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Musique originale par

Chad Blain

Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 033: This Year in Dramatic Film

Episode 033: This Year in Dramatic Film

Episode 033: This Year in Dramatic Film

This episode is part 2 or a 4 part series covering EditCon 2020 that took place on Saturday February 1st, 2020 at the TIFF Bell Lightbox in Toronto.

This episode is sponsored by IATSE 891.

2020 EditCon Panelist 2 group

There’s no formula to a festival hit, but the three editors behind the recent critically-lauded feature films Freaks, Mouthpiece, et Genesis will share how they did it. In this panel discussion Mathieu Bouchard-Malo, Lara Johnston et Sabrina Pitre talk about their process, career trajectories and what lies ahead.

This panel was moderated by Justin Lachance, CCE.

À écouter ici !

The Editor’s Cut – Episode 033 – “This Year in Dramatic Film” (EditCon 2020 Series)

 

Sarah Taylor:

This episode was generously sponsored by IATSE 891. Hello and welcome to the Editor’s Cut. I’m your host Sarah Taylor. Today I bring to you part two of our four part series covering EditCon 2020 that took place on Saturday, February 1st at the TIFF Bell Lightbox in Toronto. There’s no formula to a festival hit, but the three editors behind the recent critically-lauded feature films Freaks, Mouthpiece, and Genesis, will share how they did it. This panel discussion will focus on the process, their career trajectories, and what lies ahead.

 

[show open]

Jane MacRae:

These films have made waves on the festival circuit in Canada and internationally. As a group, they’re a fantastic demonstration of the film industry’s regional successes representing Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto. Each powerful engaging film was brought into existence through very different creative circumstances. An adaptation of a play, with two actors playing conflicting sides of a young woman’s inner dialogue. A uniquely structured drama, contrasting the lives of two teenage half-siblings. A science-fiction hybrid grounded in compelling dramatic performances. As editors, each film presents a unique experience and opportunity to find the performances, tone, and the arc. In 2018, all three of these films landed on TIFF Canada’s top 10 list. Their international festival journeys have been vast and all have received critical praise and award recognition. We’re here to celebrate the editors behind these films whose work is sometimes imperceptible, but always present.

Jane MacRae:

Our moderator Justin Lachance is well acquainted with the festival world, having had his work screened at fests including Sundance, Berlinale, South by Southwest, and TIFF. He’s also known for his work on a couple of little shows you might have heard of, Big Little Lies and Sharp Objects. IATSE 891 are pleased to welcome Lara Johnston, Mathieu Bouchard-Malo, Sabrina Pitre, and moderator Justin Lachance.

Justin Lachance:

So, I just want to say to start this off that this is amazing to see you guys all here. I mean, I’ve been to EditFest in the states and I know that ACE is amazing, but this just gives a great platform as Canadians. It talks about our reality and I’m just very proud and happy with what the CCE is doing in Canada. So, let’s get this started.

Justin Lachance:

Who here understands French? Okay, not bad. So, Mathieu is from Quebec, the editor of Genesis. And because it’s a little hard to explain the intricacies of editing in your second tongue, Mathieu will be answering in French. So, I’ll be here to direct translate. So, please, have a little more patience. Now, Jean Luc Goddard said, “Stories should have a beginning, middle, and end, but not necessarily in that order.” And that’s what we do as editors, we agonize over the absolute best way to tell the story and in scripted fiction, we have a blueprint that sometimes needs to be shuffled to find the soul of the story. So, right here we have three incredibly talented editors who have done exactly that and with the three of the most interesting films that the Great White North has produced this year. So, first I’d love to get you guys to introduce yourselves, small explanation of your career path, and introduce your film also, talk about what it’s about.

Lara Johnston:

Hi, Lara Johnston. I worked on Mouthpiece. I started many years ago as an assistant editor. I did not go to film school formally, I went to U of T for Film Studies. I mean I fell into film studies when I was there, I took a film course and just loved it. I thought I would be a writer or journalist or something. But, I started working on little Super 8 films and stuff just because I really liked making them. As soon as I left U of T, I worked on a couple small films made by artists and there was a granting system where they would get a person as a grant to sort of help them.

Lara Johnston:

So, I kind of worked on every aspect of it and kind of was production secretary and assistant to the director. And then they liked me, so, they kept me around for the editing and that’s where I sort of found my happy place. And then back then it was really easy to get into the DGC, you just paid $500 and went in to work the next day. So, that’s what happened to me. I met Susan Shipton on my first movie, It Was All Caught On Film. And then just worked my way very slowly up as an assistant editor. I worked in LA, I got into the union there. Kind of went back and forth between Toronto and a few other places and met Patricia on the way and yeah, here I am.

Justin Lachance:

Yeah, because you have a relationship with Patricia on different projects. Is that right?

Lara Johnston:

Yes, yeah.

Justin Lachance:

So, tell us about Mouthpiece and how you got onto that one.

Lara Johnston:

So, I had worked with Patricia many years ago on this weird little … thanks to Harvey Weinstein, good old Harvey. Patricia was doing this TV movie, I don’t even really know how … she came on after somebody else. And Harvey Weinstein decided it could be … it was Wrinkle in Time, it was a TV movie, Wrinkle in Time. And Harvey decided in all of Harvey’s wisdom, that it could be Harry Potter for girls. So, brought Patricia in to try to do that while someone else was making the TV movie. So, we just for six weeks we took all the TV movie footage and tried to make a feature out of it. I was the assistant editor. We had an audience preview in New Jersey. Everybody hated it, we’re like, “Okay, bye, see you later.” And then Harvey called the next day and was like “Let’s keep trying.” And then eventually after another preview where everyone hated it, it sort of formally died. But, that’s how I met Patricia and she really liked me.

Lara Johnston:

Our paths crossed a couple of times over the years. I worked as an assistant on Grey Gardens and she was the writer on that. And then an editor that I worked with she brought in … No, actually I didn’t even work with him. He came onto Grey Gardens after it went back to LA and I was by then living here. And that editor, she really liked the work that he did on Grey Gardens and so, she brought him to reedit, to do additional editing on one of her films and then I happened to work with him later. And he invited us both to a screening at TIFF a few years ago, and I bumped into her. And she asked me what I was doing and I was teaching, so, I sort of left the film business and started teaching. And she said, “Oh, you should come out of retirement and edit this film of mine.” And I was like, “Hahaha.” And then, it sort of echoed in my head, hahaha, for a couple of months.

Justin Lachance:

Sound effect.

Lara Johnston:

But, I didn’t do anything about it because I knew she was joking. And then, I think a friend of mine interviewed for the job and he called me and I really have no idea why he called me because I don’t think he could do the job but, he kind of wanted … I don’t think he even knew that I worked with her, but he just called me to talk about it randomly. And I was like, “Oh, she joked that I should do that movie.” And he said, “You got to do that. It’s totally you, it’s your style. Call her.” And so then, I called her and she’s like, “Yeah, well, that sounds interesting.” And I’m like, “What?” Because I haven’t worked on anything for six or seven years and I never had a solo editing credit, I always had second editor credits and stuff. But, she seemed to really consider it and I went through the script like crazy, a lot. And then I met her and we had a nice meeting and I gave her a lot of my ideas. And then I didn’t hear from her for a month and I was sort of not surprised by that, but I was also really depressed. And then-

Justin Lachance:

That happens all the time.

Lara Johnston:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I was like, “Aw, what did I say, what did I do, why did I say that?” All those things you do. And then randomly, and I don’t really, I’ve never asked what happened in the interim and who they talked to and who they couldn’t get and stuff, but three days before they went into production, she emailed me let’s do this. We do it and it worked great. We just got along, we’d always had fun conversations and stuff. I think the whole making of the movie was just one long fun conversation.

Justin Lachance:

That sounds amazing. How about you Sabrina?

Sabrina Pitre:

I’m originally from Toronto, but I went out to Vancouver to attend UBC and do the film production program there, which was fun. We got to shoot on actual film which was an experience and that was about as much film experience as I have actual tactile film. But, from there, I just got a job essentially loading tapes at night for The Shopping Bags show. Kind of just went from there. There was a studio in town that sort of pumped out B movies, that was what they did and they were hiring people as employees and so, I got a chance to join that team as an assistant editor, again, at nights. But, what was nice about that is you get to work with so many different editors, directors, producers who coming in out of that place that your list of credits grows quickly in the span of one year. So, as an assistant, I was able to get so much experience in the few years that I worked there. And then they eventually went bankrupt in 2009. And so, I continued to assist, but I got my first break as an editor in 2011 on a feature film called Sisters & Brothers, directed by Carl Bessai. And the only reason I got that was the editor that I often assisted for threw out his back in a skiing incident so, it was sort of just-

Justin Lachance:

Vancouver accident.

Sabrina Pitre:

Yeah, right. So it was really just one of those lucky chances, one of those lucky breaks that you get. And he recommended me to the director and so I had an interview with him, and I did not sell myself at all because I was really just intimidated and I didn’t know what I was doing and I wasn’t sure I could pull this off. A feature was so overwhelming at the time because all I had done were short films on my own. But, they didn’t have a big budget so, I think they needed me for the cheapness. And I needed them for the experience, so that was a perfect marriage. And it ended up working out really well. I got along so well with the director and he pushed me in a way creatively that we got to a place with the film that I’m really happy with and I ended up winning a Leo for it. And so it was really good encouragement anyway.

Sabrina Pitre:

I went back to assisting for about one year after and just couldn’t take it anymore, essentially. So, once you get that first taste like we were talking about, you can’t really go back. So, essentially, no one told me I was an editor now, but I just said that to myself and just sort of refused assisting work and took only editing jobs. And it was a little bit of a dent in the pocketbook, but eventually, people get to know you, you change their minds about what they think of you as. And eventually you get calls for editing gigs and you just kind of go from there.

Justin Lachance:

Kind of like what happened with Freaks?

Sabrina Pitre:

Kind of like what happened with Freaks. Well, so the way I met the guys, I got hired onto my first union show for Disney called Mech-X4 and Zach Lipovsky was one of the exec producers on it as well as the showrunner. And Adam Stein was one of the directors that they had brought on board to direct some of the episodes. And so I got to work with both of them very closely and we got on really well and found that we were kind of on a similar wavelength terms of creativity. So, once that show wrapped up, the guys, they had a longstanding relationship and they had been writing script together for the longest time called Freaks. And they approached me about it and sent me an early draft and asked if I’d be interested in editing it. And I was like, “Hell yes, absolutely.” It just seemed like the right thing to do at the right time and I couldn’t say no, so.

Justin Lachance:

It’s perfect. And Mathieu?

Mathieu Bouchard-Malo:

[Mathieu answers in French]

Justin Lachance:

Okay, so Mathieu started off as an assistant editor. He studied cinema in Montreal and then got a job at a post production facility, with one of the rare ones that actually had an Avid back then in the ’90s, so.

Mathieu Bouchard-Malo:

[Mathieu answers in French]

Justin Lachance:

So then, he was only an assistant editor for a year, which is impressive. And then, one of his friends asked him to start a post production facility and he was the in-house editor for a while.

Mathieu Bouchard-Malo:

[Mathieu answers in French]

Justin Lachance:

So, after doing music videos and commercials and tons of different formats, he finally was able to do a feature film that was called Full Blast by Rodrigue Jean that actually played at the TIFF, at TIFF Festival. So, I mean it’s called Fest anyway. And then, now, how did you get involved with Philippe Lesage, the director of Genesis?

Mathieu Bouchard-Malo:

[Mathieu answers in French]

Justin Lachance:

Okay, so, that was a long sentence. Philippe was coming back from Denmark and he his studies down there and he came back to Montreal and was hired to do a Making Of a film that he wanted to make into a much bigger production, a documentary about that making of. The production wasn’t necessarily warm to it, but Mathieu decided to join forces and brother in arms, they made it together. And then they progressed on to making documentaries together and Philippe would do camera, sound, and everything. And Mathieu would do everything for post production like color and editing and assistants and everything. So, they were kind of a one stop crew film shop.

Mathieu Bouchard-Malo:

[Mathieu answers in French]

Justin Lachance:

So, there’s an admiration from Mathieu towards Philippe’s work and the documentary language was easily translated into the fiction world. And as he was working on documentaries, he was always thinking about the next fiction and how to make that work.

Mathieu Bouchard-Malo:

And I think it’s both language … two language documentary and fiction, but I think it’s very interesting to merge at the certain point.

Justin Lachance:

Absolutely. And Genesis does that perfectly. There’s some points where you actually feel like you’re watching a documentary because it’s just like long shots that are drifting, you’re just following what’s going on. So, let’s have look at what that looks like. Let’s play that trailer of Genesis from Mathieu and we’ll continue the talk after that.

 

[ Clip Plays]

Justin Lachance:

So, we had asked you for a clip of the film and there was a discussion where we’re just like, “You know what? What clip would we choose because they’re all very, very long.” And the strength of the film is let’s watch this happen. So, that’s why we chose a trailer, but a lot of this happens with young actors. You have sequence shots that take a long time and how did you guys work with that? Because young actors and sequence shots are sometimes the hardest thing to deal with as an editor. So, how did you guys work with that?

Mathieu Bouchard-Malo:

[Mathieu answers in French]

Justin Lachance:

Okay, so the decision, it didn’t cause any problems to work with younger actors with less experience, but Philippe had a very specific decision or he wanted something very specific for each scene, so they just sometimes shot 30 takes per shot. And so, it wasn’t a difference in performance, not necessarily anybody flubbing a line, it was just that he was so specific with that’s what he wanted.

Mathieu Bouchard-Malo:

And sometime, the first or the second take is almost perfect on [ Mathieu continues in French]

Justin Lachance:

First, I’ll translate and then I’ll ask him another question. Basically, what would happen is that, in the beginning of the first shots, there would be … the performance was actually pretty fresh and really great, but sometimes the technical aspects of the shot were not as great, so, they would continue and perfect that. And then, it would become mechanical in performances, so, then it wouldn’t work as well because you would kind of feel the acting. And then eventually, as the later takes happen, they would all be like, “Oh okay. They’re kind of tired, the actors are tired.” So, they just act more natural in that situation, and then, the technical parts would be great. And then, if it wasn’t in the first takes, it was in the last takes, the 30th take. And so, he would spend a lot of time watching all the takes though, in the edit suite. And was there any time you just decided to choose a middle one? Did that happen?

Mathieu Bouchard-Malo:

Yes. [ Mathieu continues in French]

Justin Lachance:

So, Mathieu has the chance to work on a lot of films d’auteur. I actually don’t know how to translate that, do you guys know?

Audience:

[inaudible 00:24:37]

Justin Lachance:

Auteur films, there you go, sure. And a lot of them have very specific narrative qualities, and that’s what he’s passionate about. And one thing with those kinds of films is that you have a lot more time and you have a lot more time to experiment and propose new ways of editing the scenes and you can really finesse it. And with Genesis …

Mathieu Bouchard-Malo:

That was the case with Genesis. [Mathieu continues in French]

Justin Lachance:

So, usually, he starts editing a film while it’s shooting and he doesn’t have the chronological order of the text. So, this time with Genesis, it was actually a little different, he started editing after they were shot, so you could really watch it unfold.

Mathieu Bouchard-Malo:

[Mathieu answers in French]

Justin Lachance:

So, he was able to do an assembly very quickly and he was able to really follow what Philippe … the intentions and the rhythm of every scene.

Justin Lachance:

So, I’m going to go over to Sabrina too because you also worked with younger actors, specifically Lexy Kolker. And, but, you had completely different approach. There was no long shots and stuff like that. How did that work?

Sabrina Pitre:

Well, there were long shots, but they workshopped almost every one of her lines. So, they’d have her read it over and over again and with different intentions. They wanted her performance to be as real as possible. And so, I think similarly to Mathieu, the directors wanted something specific out of her and they just kept her going until they found what they wanted. Sometimes they didn’t know what they wanted and they just gave me the options and I kind of decided in the edit suite, sort of how … There were a lot of different ways to take it as a result because we had so many different reads that it gave me an immense amount of freedom, for sure.

Justin Lachance:

And you kind of masterfully got her arc perfectly. Every emotional build was really well done. How much of that was done in the edit room because you had so many options? How-

Sabrina Pitre:

A lot of it. Just because it was piecemeal in terms of how we were getting her lines. And plus her working with Emile, Emile was great at helping her get to those levels that she needed to have intensity in some scenes. He’d keep pushing her and she would push back and they’d kept growing, growing, growing, growing together and you’d get some really great back and forth. So, ultimately, I got everything that I needed out of those performances. It’s just a matter of picking and choosing, really.

Justin Lachance:

That’s amazing because she’s phenomenal in the film. She’s really, really great.

Sabrina Pitre:

Yeah, I mean, really. She made the job easy. She’s a very talented little girl.

Justin Lachance:

She’s the main focus of the entire thing, so.

Sabrina Pitre:

Yeah, she needed to carry the film, so getting a strong actress of that age was instrumental.

Justin Lachance:

Yeah, amazing. Let’s watch that clip of Freaks.

 

[Clip plays]

Justin Lachance:

That is intense.

Sabrina Pitre:

I feel like that needs a lot of explanation if you haven’t seen the film.

Justin Lachance:

Yeah, I guess if you haven’t seen the film, you’re just like what is coming out of her eye? But, why this clip?

Sabrina Pitre:

Yeah, so, this was an interesting turning point in the film. Before all of this, Chloe had been kept inside her house by her father, he’d been telling her that there are these dangerous people outside, never to go, they’ll kill you. And so, he has all the windows taped up and boarded, but she happens to meet this stranger who spots her from a window that she’s peeping through and coaxes her to actually come out. So, she unbeknownst to her father, had already left the house and met this person. And he gave her this sleeping powder to give to her dad, so she could continue to explore the outside. Up until that point, Chloe was very much sort of commanded by her father. The power was all in his side, and so, this was the first time that we weren’t even sure that she possessed any kind of powers herself or even that powers existed. It’s all very vague in the beginning. And so, this was the first time that she took control of the situation and did what she wanted.

Justin Lachance:

Yeah, and it was interesting because there was just enough information to figure out okay, what’s going on here? And it kept you hooked the whole time and it was very well paced for that. I hear, that you guys did quite a few test screenings.

Sabrina Pitre:

Yes.

Justin Lachance:

And I’m just wondering, did that help with the comprehension or the pacing of everything like that or?

Sabrina Pitre:

It did actually. It ended up helping quite a bit.

Justin Lachance:

How many test screenings was it?

Sabrina Pitre:

14 test screenings.

Justin Lachance:

During post production?

Sabrina Pitre:

It nearly broke me, but yeah, 14 test screenings. Yeah, I mean, it was seven done in … all simultaneously done, seven in Vancouver, seven in LA. So we were getting kind of a lot of different feedback based on those two groups.

Justin Lachance:

What were you looking for? What kind of questions would you ask? That’s a lot of information.

Sabrina Pitre:

I know. So the big thing was, comprehension and just, it is a slow burn. And so, we were concerned how long we could keep audiences on the hook with before they lose interest. That was very good lesson in terms of these test screenings because we learned very quickly that we have to reveal little pieces. We have to give the audience something at certain point in order to keep them invested. So, yeah, I found the feedback we got from audiences for those test screenings was very, very helpful just to help us craft that. I mean, from how it was scripted to how it ultimately ended up here is quite different.

Justin Lachance:

I imagine. And then, so, how did you resolve those kind of decisions because you were working with a director duo who are also producers and have experience editing and also the writers? So how were decisions processed?

Sabrina Pitre:

So, after a test screening, the guys would sort of summarize everything that had been discussed at the test screenings. And then we would come back into the edit suite and just essentially intensely work for another week trying to solve those problems in the way we thought could work obviously while maintaining the integrity of their own vision as well. Because it’s easy to try and appease everybody, but you can’t to a certain degree, so. Yeah, it was just a matter of taking one issue at time. Okay, so, we notice that they’re really confused here, how can we solve that by bringing in something earlier that gives a little release. So, it was really just problem solving and just really trying to figure out things and little bit along the whole way until finally when you sit back. After every session that we had, we were convinced, this is it guys, we’re done, we did it, yes. And then the test screening would happen and we’re like, “There’s still questions. Oh god. Okay, well we got to figure this out.” So, yeah, the guys even called me at one point, they were all very serious and were like, “Sabrina, we know we’ve been in post for a while and we know we’ve had” … this is probably after the 10th test screening and they were worried I was just going to walk because I don’t think they’ve ever done this to another editor yet in their career.

Sabrina Pitre:

We’re all very similar in age, as well, so, they’re young filmmakers as well, so. They were worried that they were going to lose me at some point. But, it’s one of those projects, it’s so ambitious. I was invested from the beginning, so, there’s no way I was going to walk away.

Justin Lachance:

Absolutely. It was marathon.

Sabrina Pitre:

Yeah, yeah. I think it was about six months in post.

Justin Lachance:

Okay, well, Lara, you also with Mouthpiece had a lot of test screenings, but not quite as many.

Lara Johnston:

I thought we had a lot, but then I met Sabrina.

Justin Lachance:

How many was it again?

Lara Johnston:

We had four. Yeah.

Justin Lachance:

That’s still considerable because usually it’s around two or so.

Lara Johnston:

Yeah, yeah. It’s still a lot for a Canadian film I think.

Justin Lachance:

Did it help with the story telling?

Lara Johnston:

Yeah, it was incredibly helpful. The whole movie’s kind of based on a conceit, if you haven’t seen it. That it’s one person who kind of becomes two people. So, kind of our early screenings were about comprehensibility, would people actually understand that? And our first screening was really small, it was actually just some … not just some editors … some editors. So, we had I think three editors and one person who was friend of mine come and they understood what was going on, but because they were editors, and it’s a great experience to show your film to editors, although you do get a lot of feedback, but it was about sort of the structure. And so, the film is two stories, kind of woven together. The woman’s mother dies and then it’s kind of about her dealing with her grief, but it’s woven together with flashbacks of her mother. So, the way the film was originally structured in the script was that we met the mom very late on, I think two-thirds of the way into the film. Yeah, and so, the main feedback from the screening was just that they really liked the mom, but by then, you’re kind of, you don’t want to get to know another character.

Lara Johnston:

So, we had to pull her story up to the beginning of the film. And that constituted a lot of work. I’d say if you look at the amount of time we spent working in that area, it was up here and everything else is down here. And again, if you’ve seen the film, there’s an escalator ride that just goes on and on and on, two escalator rows in the bay. And that was partly because we had this … kind of these flashbacks that were all locked together and had to bring them to the front. So, we had at least two screenings to try to kind of get it to a place where we were pretty happy with. But, then we also just got really specific with screenings. Patricia liked to do … she’s made some studio films and with studio films you do cards where you fill things out. And it’s pretty awful in a studio film because the studio will put it front of your face and go [inaudible 00:39:15]. Whatever, you need to put more of this character in or make this character more likable or whatever.

Lara Johnston:

But, she kind of does it because she really wants the person’s direct first impression rather than the mob mentality that you get after when everyone’s talking together. I mean, I find the talking together after really helpful too as an editor because someone will say something and then another person will go, “Oh yeah, I agree with that.” And then you get a sense of sort of consensus.

Lara Johnston:

But, one of the things that was really interesting that came out after one of the screenings, so there’s a plot point in the film and it was this screening was kind of breaking up and it had been a really good screening. We sort of felt like oh we’re done. We always picked our audiences, we wanted it to be the demographic for the film. And it was never trying to appeal to anybody we that we didn’t think was the demographic. But, just someone was standing around talking to Patricia after and just sort of mentioned they didn’t like this one thing in the plot. And it was like I don’t know why we never thought of it before, but she just said it seems kind of devicey. So, the mother’s supposed to take some pills, she decides not to take these pills and then dies as a result of not taking the pills and it’s directly the result of something her daughter has said to her. And this woman said it felt very devicey. And we were just kind of like yeah. Because it was a device.

Justin Lachance:

And that would have affect the entire rest of the film because that was at the beginning where you learn that somewhere, and yeah. Your perception of those characters is completely changed.

Lara Johnston:

Yeah, yeah. So after that, we said, “Well, why don’t we try taking it out?” And we did and it came out so easily, it was just sort of a clue that it was a device and it really wasn’t woven that organically in. Except there are a couple scenes where I really had to do some hack jobs to sort of get around the talking about it and stuff. But, it was really useful for that and then also just, everyone here I’m sure has experienced it, that feeling of watching something with an audience tells you so much, right? You just don’t even have to ask them anything, you just get-

Justin Lachance:

You feel the vibe of the room.

Lara Johnston:

You feel it, yeah. And sitting beside Patricia, and she’s looking at me and going like this. They were incredible helpful in that regard.

Justin Lachance:

And there’s this feminist undertone throughout the whole movie that’s basically the essence of the movie. And it’s wonderfully done and beautiful to watch. But, there’s also this moment where Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a cut. She says flat out what is the message and it’s powerful, it’s very powerful because what a great spokesperson. But, I was just wondering, how did that come to be?

Lara Johnston:

That was in the script and it happens to fall in the … Patricia and I call it the escalator ride to hell. So, it’s one of the areas I just felt was too long anyways, so I strongly did not want it to be … It’s just you go to the escalator, you go to a flashback of the mom, you go into these weird musical numbers, and then come back to the escalator, and then you go to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and I’m like we don’t need that. I felt like it was already very sort of there in the film. But, a lot of people, when we showed it to audiences and young women especially, it really resonated with them. And I felt like it was something I could’ve fought harder to take out, but the audience reaction to it did really resonate with me. And so, it’s kind of that line of deciding it’s not my favorite moment in the film and I feel like why do you just go there for one time. It’s not woven in, but it was important to people and they really liked it. And so, you decide things to keep and things to lose. That’s deep.

Justin Lachance:

Yeah, you pick your battles.

Lara Johnston:

Exactly. Yeah.

Justin Lachance:

No, but, it is a very powerful moment in the film. It does take you out a little bit and you’re like wait, what just happened? But, that message is so clear and it really resonates throughout the whole film. It’s wonderful. So let’s watch a clip, this one’s in the grocery store of Mouthpiece.

 

[Clip Plays]

 

Justin Lachance:

That’s an amazing clip. Why did you choose that one?

Lara Johnston:

I was talking to Mathieu about that before I don’t … I didn’t know we could pick a trailer.

Justin Lachance:

Oh really?

Lara Johnston:

No, it’s really hard to pick a clip because it’s not so much about the scene. But, I mean I did pick that … the movie only has two musical numbers, so it’s actually not really indicative of what the movie is, but the language of the film is something we … it kind of evolved as we were editing. And there was a third musical number which got cut and there’s sort of a shot that I couldn’t figure out how to use that they shot for the scene. And I ended up using these flash cuts to use the shot to get into the musical number. And everyone really liked that. So, then I tried it with this scene. They shot this on the last day and they sort of had liked the earlier scene, so it kind of wove, had the dialogue go back and forth so we could kind of do it going out of the scene too.

Lara Johnston:

And also the musical numbers were much longer in the script and shot longer and the musical numbers were always on the chopping block because they were left from the play, so this is based on play. And they were very much of the play’s DNA and some people, Patricia included, she kept on saying, “I hate musical numbers. Why am I doing these musical numbers?” But, some people really liked them and they’re very much part of the theme of the film and the performative aspect of being a woman and her having to kind of come up with what she’s going to say about her mom. And so, the happy medium we came up was just making them shorter, which I think they’re great.

Justin Lachance:

Yeah, absolutely. And there’s also a device that you used throughout the whole film too that kind of helps those transitions. I know it’s during heightened emotions there’s flashes and there’s a specific one where a bathtub where she’s drowning in the bathtub. How did that devise?

Lara Johnston:

That was again, that was left over from the play, but in the first act, they do get into the bathtub, but there was a scene where they sort of have a fight in the bathtub. And it’s sort of supposed to frame the fight that they have at the end and that early audience we had of editors, yeah, if you want to feel bad about your film, show it to a bunch of editors. They’re like, “Oh yeah, we just feel knocked around at the beginning.” So, part of the beginning was taking stuff out and really figuring out what needed to be there. When I read the script, it was almost like train spotting, sort of the opening and it couldn’t be further from that, it’s very slow sort of getting into it.

Lara Johnston:

So, there’s this bathtub scene and the footage is pretty cool and we ended up putting a shot of it in the credit sequence. And then, there’s this scene where they have this feminist awakening in the bathtub. And I always … I didn’t quite feel like the scene went far enough and so one day, I just put in a bunch of the bathtub footage and I sped it up. And everyone’s like, “That is so cool. I don’t know what it means, but let’s leave it in there.” So, it was just kind of trying to use stuff and for me, it was a little bit about what’s just boiling inside of her.

Justin Lachance:

And just being overwhelmed, completely overwhelmed. It was wonderful, it was beautiful. I had talked with Richard Comeau who’s an editor, really great editor from Quebec and he’s done a bunch of films here. He said that the difference between a documentary editing and fiction editing is, documentary you’re always asking what do I put in, and in fiction, you ask what do I want to take out? I don’t know if you guys had any input on that kind of stuff. But, I feel like when you’re rewriting scripts and stuff like that and the third writing of post production, there’s always that kind of idea of removing scenes.

Mathieu Bouchard-Malo:

[Mathieu answers in French]

Justin Lachance:

Oh, wow. We’ll just carry on. I’m sorry.

Sabrina Pitre:

Similarly, yeah, I find with scripted you have this sort of bones of a scene, but once it’s shot and once you see how the actors have interpreted it, things change dramatically. And so, a lot of the test screening too helped us determine whether or not some characters just needed to be lessened or whether some scenes needed to be pulled because the father was coming across too harsh. That relationship was a very delicate balance between him and Chloe. And so there were some early scenes of him punishing her essentially that were just removed because we found the audience just wasn’t connecting with them as father-daughter. So, yeah, it’s like the script is sort of just the foundation and then you can kind of take that and just mix it up and do what’s necessary to get really the core of the story coming through and the themes that you want and it all kind of has to be harmonious, so it’s never set in stone what’s written down anyway.

Lara Johnston:

Yeah, I guess. Like our film was … Patricia kept on saying it’s film about a woman who does errands for the day and writes a eulogy. It’s not terribly action heavy, so I think that really drove, whittling and whittling and whittling. And there’s some really kind of fast cutty stuff in it, but then part of it is you just have these moments where you want just to kind of go into this kind of very lull where she’s just in her head and she’s kind of thinking and stuff. And I think for those moments to kind of resonate, you kind of wanted the other moments to kind of move quickly. And so, yeah, I mean just sort of finding that balance between the two kind of tones I think was helpful.

Justin Lachance:

That pretty much sums up our job. I’ll open the floor Q & A. Is there anybody, yes?

Audience:

Hi. My question is how do you work with the director and how much room you have from the director, how you communicate with the director and what kinds of director that you think is fantastic to work with?

Mathieu Bouchard-Malo:

[Mathieu answers in French]

Justin Lachance:

So the director is on set always asking questions and they have to have answers constantly. And they’re bombarded by decision making and they have to be on all the time and so, in the post productions situation, the time and the possibility of questioning themselves and really trying things out, gives them a lot more freedom and that is for an editor, you’re supposed to nurture that and help that along.

Mathieu Bouchard-Malo:

[Mathieu answers in French]

Justin Lachance:

And so, depends on the director, some are hardly there, sometimes you just work on your own, sometimes they’re always there constantly. And so you have to stay a little bit open to different kind of ways of working.

Sabrina Pitre:

Yeah, I think Mathieu covered that really well. Essentially, you have a relationship with the director, director-editor. It’s like a collaboration, so I think the more you take that to heart, the better really. The idea that you can experiment together in the edit suite and there’s isn’t any set way necessarily to achieve something, it’s just you kind of find your way there together. Obviously, getting the freedom to experiment alone is always helpful too as an editor just because I feel if you don’t have somebody watching over you the whole time, you have a bit more freedom to do something incredibly bad and be like, “Oh yeah, that’s not going to work.”

Justin Lachance:

And then you feel like you’re God because it’s like, “Oh this is perfect.”

Sabrina Pitre:

Yeah, right. So, yeah, it’s really just giving that, having that flexibility and building that relationship with your editor. It’s sort of symbiosis really.

Lara Johnston:

To feel safe, to try crazy stuff and there are a couple scenes where I cut them completely different than she wanted. And she was like, “That’s interesting, but let’s try this.” And we ended up doing it her way, but then we used some of the ideas in a different spot. You have to feel like you have the freedom to do that and Patricia just really nurtured that, she said that to everybody on the crew, just go crazy. It just created such a great sort of environment.

Audience:

I have a question about test screenings? And I know two of you, Lara and Sabrina, mentioned test screenings. I don’t know for you Mathieu for Genesis, are there comments you get back from test screenings that you completely disagree with and fight for those edits to stay in and have you been successful?

Lara Johnston:

Yeah, I mean, one thing …. and Patricia right from the beginning was like, “We’re only going to do the things we agree with.” And that wasn’t that she wasn’t open to other comments, but it’s kind of a way of confirming something that you already have doubt about or if there’s something you’re disagreeing about, that it can kind of give you … And for me, it’d be Bader Ginsburg and there was one other … There was many versions where we had a title card in the beginning because some people didn’t understand the whole conceit of the movie until very late and it upset them. And so, it was just always a balance between the ones that are helpful and then the ones that aren’t. It’s different with studios because sometimes you have to do them, but not in Canada, which is what’s so amazing about it.

Justin Lachance:

Yes it is.

Mathieu Bouchard-Malo:

[Mathieu answers in French]

Justin Lachance:

So Mathieu said that he hasn’t really done big test screenings with a giant room full of people, but he has done with a select few people who have been nicely chosen. And sometimes you can fight against those notes, but they always come back in your brain and they always start making you think about this current thing. And it’s like okay, let’s try some things. It can usually help.

Sabrina Pitre:

Yeah, I mean for the most part, you’re always going to get those comments. Like, what the hell, come on. But, it’s always going to be a mixed bag, but it’s more I think about maybe how many of the similar comments like those you’re getting. It’s important to weigh sort of the percentages of how many are saying the same thing. But, ultimately, it is your vision, so, it’s up to you whether you want to take it to heart. But, it’s just a way of kind of pulling you out of sort of a tunnel-vision that you can get sometimes about your film.

Audience:

My question’s for Sabrina. Did you notice a difference between the comments you got from LA and the comments you got from Vancouver?

Sabrina Pitre:

Yes, yes we did. Yeah, that was interesting. We actually found the LA people were a little less in tune with the vision we had for the film, oddly enough, I think they’re used to a certain budget level, a certain … yeah, just way of going about things. Maybe the slow burn they weren’t a big fan of that either, ultimately. So, we did have to take a lot of those comments with a grain of salt sometimes without compromising the vision of the film. But yeah, but, it was interesting because ultimately, you want your film to appeal to a wide range of audiences, so you don’t want to … I think the guys were very specific about choosing people from various backgrounds and doing these multi-city screenings in order to get as much kind of varied feedback as they could. So, ultimately, it was quite helpful.

Justin Lachance:

Well, thank you very much for the film panel.

Sarah Taylor:

Thanks for joining us today and a big thank you to our panelists and moderator. A special thanks goes to Jane MacRae, Maureen Grant, and the CCE Board for helping create EditCon 2020.

 

The main title sound design was created by Jane Tattersall. Additional ADR recording by Andrea Rusch. Original music provided by Chad Blain. This episode was mixed and mastered by Tony Bao. The CCE has been supporting Indspire – an organization that provides funding and scholarships to 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 a 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.

 

[Outtro]

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.

IATSE 2018 Sponsor Event logo

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

A special thanks goes to the following people for helping to create EditCon 2020

Jane MacRae

Maureen Grant

IATSE 891

the CCE board

Animé, produit et monté par

Sarah Taylor

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Musique originale par

Chad Blain

Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 036: Talking Comedy with Richard Schwadel

The Editors Cut - Episode 036: Talking Comedy with Richard Schwadel

Episode 036: Talking Comedy with Richard Schwadel

This episode is the zoom event that took place on May 5th, 2020.

This episode is sponsored by Finalé Post: A Picture Company, Annex Pro/ Avid, Vancouver Post Alliance , IATSE 891 & Integral Artists.

Richard is a motion picture editor whose love of comedy sparked a career that includes credits on “Loudermilk”, “Dead Like Me”, “The Drew Carey Show”, “The Simpsons” and “Pee-Wee’s Playhouse.”

Over the years he’s had the good fortune of collaborating with such comedy icons as David Steinberg, Nora Ephron, Jason Alexander, Penny Marshall and the Farrelley brothers.

Richard’s latest project was editing fourteen chapters of the Farrelley’s, “The Now” for Quibi.

This Q&A was moderated by Maja Jacob.

À écouter ici !

The Editor’s Cut – Episode 036 – Talking Comedy with Richard Schwadel (2020 Master Series)



Sarah Taylor:

This episode was generously sponsored by Finale Post, a picture company, Annex Pro, Avid, Vancouver Post Alliance, IATSE 891, and Integral Artists. 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 acknowledgments are the start to a deeper action. 

 

Today’s episode is the Zoom event that took place on May 5, 2020, Talking Comedy with Richard Schwadel. Richard is a motion picture editor whose love of comedy sparked a career that includes credits on Loudermilk, Dead Like Me, The Drew Carey Show, The Simpsons, and Pee Wee’s Playhouse. Over the years, he’s had the good fortune of collaborating with such comedy icons as David Steinberg, Nora Ephron, Jason Alexander, Penny Marshall, and the Farrelly brothers. Richard’s latest project was editing 14 chapters of the Farrelly’s The Now for Quibi. This Q&A was moderated by Maja Jacob. To see the notes that Richard refers to in this episode, please check out the episode webpage.

 

[show open]

Maja Jacob:

All right. Welcome, everyone to the CCE’s master series, Talking Comedy, featuring the one and only Richard Schwadel.

Richard Schwadel:

Woohoo.

Maja Jacob:

Yay. Hello from Toronto. I’m Maja Jacob, and I’ll be your moderator today. So, Richard, how’s Vancouver treating you?

Richard Schwadel:

Vancouver is great, unless you have to go to the bank. I just spent a half an hour in line at two banks, very frustrated, but it’s all good. I’m happy it’s sunny.

Maja Jacob:

And I heard you got an electric bike. So, you’re zooming around on the bike?

Richard Schwadel:

Yep. I had it almost a year now, and I’d love it. It’s really fun. It’s great. I would ride it year-round if I didn’t have to get wet all the time. It’s fun.

Maja Jacob:

Nice. Richard, can you give us a brief overview of your career path? And were there any people or shows that made a particular mark on you?

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah. I’ll just give a bird’s eye view of how my career went. I started as a PA, post production assistant on a sitcom. Unbeknownst to me at the time, it was a really top network sitcom. There wasn’t any cable at the time. To me, it was just a cool job. I didn’t know if I was really going to like it or not. But I hung in there, and ended up going from a post-PA to an assistant editor.

Richard Schwadel:

I did that job for a couple of years, and then wanted to try something different, and moved into what was then called reality TV, which was more like feature profiles of people. I worked on the show that some of you may know called Real People. It was a very popular network comedy. This is in the US. I’m from Los Angeles originally.

Richard Schwadel:

This show is like, it celebrated Americana, usually, really quirky, crazy stuff. And so, they go out and shoot little feature stories on people. It was an hour-long show. The editors, there were about 12 editors on that show, which was pretty amazing. We had our own building. That was a really good experience. And I worked in that genre for a while.

Richard Schwadel:

And then, went on to start directing in that genre doing kind of lifestyle stuff. I traveled around the US shooting stories on a couple of shows-

Maja Jacob:

You’re American, right?

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah.

Maja Jacob:

So, a lot of people don’t know that he’s actually a US dual citizen now.

Richard Schwadel:

I was born in LA. I grew up in LA, and then I moved to Canada. Actually, 25 years ago, this month. It’s pretty amazing. So, yes, from the lifestyle stuff. I then started working in skit shows. There were a couple of sketch shows on TV, and I edited a couple of those. A lot of the shows back then were 22 episodes. So, they were almost year-long gigs. And then, from there, I went back into sitcoms.

Richard Schwadel:

The first show I went back to was Anything But Love, which was Jamie Lee Curtis and Richard Lewis. It was a great show. It’s really funny. I had a great team of writers. Really cool show runner. We became close friends, and I then started all of these people who would work on these shows would get other shows. They’d write pilots, and I would work on their pilots.

Richard Schwadel:

They would get an order for a series. They’d asked me to work on the series. So, it really was, once somebody became familiar with your work as an editor, they wanted to continue working with you, which was very cool. The last sitcom I did in the US was The Drew Carey Show. I cut the pilot, and then ended up moving here to Vancouver, worked a little bit here.

Richard Schwadel:

But didn’t find much work, and then went back, and worked for, I don’t know how many episodes I did, a dozen or so Drew Carey episodes. And then, came back to Vancouver, worked on Police Academy with Daria. That was probably-

Maja Jacob:

Oh, nice.

Richard Schwadel:

… the first comedy series here. That was the TV version of the movie. It was a really hard transition going from solely comedy editing to dramatic, because all of the people here, the showrunners were like, “Well, you have no drama experience. We don’t know if you can cut drama.” And I would tell them, “Well, comedy is harder.” And they were like, “Yeah, whatever.”

Maja Jacob:

How did you get into the Vancouver market then being an LA editor, and then coming here, and try to find work? How did that go for you?

Richard Schwadel:

It was just a lot of banging on doors. I think Police Academy was the first series, and then trying to remember what I did the next one. I’d actually have to go to IMDb. It might have been The Crow. They did a TV version of The Crow, and I think I got hired on that after Police Academy. The Crow is like ’97 or something. And so, then once I had a couple of series that made things a little easier.

Maja Jacob:

And do you remember the first producer that you worked with in Vancouver? I’m just throwing this question out here.

Richard Schwadel:

I can’t remember who the first one was. Because Police Academy was a US show shooting here. The Crow was a US show shooting here. Might have been a show called These Arms of Mine, which I worked on. I can’t remember the year on that either. But anyways, in terms of just really quickly, any people, or shows that made a particular mark on me. They all do. They all have.

Richard Schwadel:

The ones I remember early on were the sitcom I worked on the first show was Barney Miller. And that show runner created the quad split. He is the first person to have stacked four cameras, and then make each one an isolated feed so that they would have more flexibility in the editing. And so, the technology, and stuff on that show was really impressive.

Richard Schwadel:

There were two editors on that show, two types of editors. There were the creative editors, and the assembly editors. I was an assembly editor. And what we did was the creative editors were film editors working in videotape. They had no clue about anything. Literally, they’re like, “What, how do I,” like you go right hand, and touch a button, or whatever, and help them.

Richard Schwadel:

Literally, this is all linear editing, okay? No nonlinear yet. They would write down the in and out time codes of every edit in the show, including audio-only edits into a log. They would hand it to the assembly editors. We would go into a different machine room, type it in, all the time code into the machine room with five different playback machines, one for each camera in the line cut.

Richard Schwadel:

And then, we would build their show, and then hand it back to them. And then, they make more notes. And it would go back and forth, back and forth. It was a really complex system. And I learned timecode in and out. But I also learned from these guys, how they made their decisions on how to cut, and where to cut, and how to separate picture from sound, which that was probably one of the best things I learned early on is how to cheat sound.

Richard Schwadel:

And then, the other thing that had a big impression on me was the show, Real People, where we would edit these feature, mostly comedy stories. It was an audience show. It was a one-hour show that was recorded live. It wasn’t broadcast live. And they would play back the stories for the audience. I could sit in the audience, and watch my story, and see how people reacted to it, which was great.

Maja Jacob:

That’s cool. That’s cool.

Richard Schwadel:

I really learned a lot. It was during that time that I learned that my sense of humor connected with people.

Maja Jacob:

And that you had a natural talent for comedy.

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah. I’ve always liked comedy, and I’ve been somewhat of a funny person, I think. I don’t tell a lot of jokes. But I have a funny bone, no doubt.

Maja Jacob:

So, you mentioned my next question is you experienced the crossover from linear to nonlinear offline editing firsthand. So, you were there in the beginning of digital editing. Tell us about the first time you saw the Avid software.

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah. On the Warner Brothers lot, I was editing sitcoms at the time. And they weren’t ready to sell their product yet to any shows, but they wanted people to see it. They do dog and pony shows, and go around, and invite editors. And then, I remembered going to look at it. And everybody was agreed the same thing. It was awesome. It was really cool.

Richard Schwadel:

But nobody is going to use it because in a wide shot, it was so pixelated, you couldn’t see a mouth moving. So, it’s like, it’s going to be great when they get that part down, but until then.

Maja Jacob:

Big giant pixels on the screen. That was the first Avid.

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah. They weren’t huge, but you could see the face, but you could barely see in a master, anyone’s mouth moving, so yeah,

Maja Jacob:

So, editing comedies, what makes editing comedy different than cutting drama?

Richard Schwadel:

So, before we get to that, I want to just say, ask me what the most important thing about comedy is?

Maja Jacob:

What’s the most important thing of-

Richard Schwadel:

Timing.

Maja Jacob:

All right.

Richard Schwadel:

Okay. I’m not going to say that dad joke again. But that really is it’s a setup, and it was a subverted expectation. I jumped in, and somebody might have been expecting an actual answer. So, some really interesting things about comedy that are really basic. Ricky Gervais said, “Comedy is just a normal person trying to do something big that they’re not equipped or ready for, and it really helps if they’re arrogant and stupid.”

Maja Jacob:

Nice.

Richard Schwadel:

That’s a great quote. I actually think comedies are more difficult to edit. Because a lot of times, you’re dealing with a wider range of emotions. And it could be in one scene, in a really short scene, even. Each beat has to really hit its mark. And if it’s going from a dramatic moment to a funny moment, sometimes the actors pull it off without having to do anything, or a lot of times they do.

Richard Schwadel:

But sometimes you need to stretch and compress stuff to make a joke land funnier. Whereas in drama, literally, you could just hang on a shot, and know the composer is going to add some music there, and the camera is going to push in, and someone’s eyes are going to tear up, and it’s like, “Ooh, there’s a moment.” I think comedy takes a lot more work in that way also.

Richard Schwadel:

Reactions, finding appropriate looks to play off of dialogue, line inflections, that the subtle difference of a line, inflection can change whether a joke works or not. Going into a comedy, if you’re working on a comedy, to me, the most important thing is know what the world that your characters are living in is.

Richard Schwadel:

You have to know that world because the joke will only work if it lives in that real environment. Even if it’s a broad comedy, a broad stupid comedy, if you go to like Dumb and Dumber. I’m sure there were things that were thrown out in Dumb and Dumber, that didn’t work in that world, for whatever reason. But I find constantly, all jokes, and character are measured by that yardstick.

Richard Schwadel:

And so, I’ve gotten into shows, I’m sure other people have too, where you may not have a chance to have big long discussions with the showrunners before you start. So, you almost have to figure that out based on the dailies you’re getting, and whatever brief snippets of conversations you can have with the show runners, or director.

Richard Schwadel:

But in the edit room, oftentimes, every show runner I’ve worked with will question, “Is it real, or is it over the top? Does this line work, or is it too much? Is that too broad for this, or is the right tone for the show?” And I think what I’ve learned to do is trust my gut. When I laugh watching dailies, I make a note of that, and I protect that. You have to because you’re going to see it 150 times.

Richard Schwadel:

When I’m screening for a network recut of something, often I’m not laughing at something that I was laughing at the first time I saw it. But I have to remember that I know it’s funny.

Maja Jacob:

Because you’ve seen it so many times, right?

Richard Schwadel:

You’ve seen it so many times, and there’re still things, like I’m going to show you clips of stuff that I still laugh at. And I was laughing the entire time. It just depends. It’s really important to trust your initial reaction to the material. Your decisions should never be arbitrary, or what you think the director wants. That was a big mistake I made early on was, “Oh, the director wants this,” or I’ll get into this later, but could have a seven-minute take that says director favourite. Well, there’s no way in hell, all seven minutes are great.

Maja Jacob:

And we’ll get into that later.

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah. We’ll get into that.

Maja Jacob:

Who has those seven-minute takes? There’s one question here regarding timing, can you fix bad timing?

Richard Schwadel:

Yes, to an extent. If the joke is funny, yeah, you can fix the timing. Absolutely. Assuming you have the coverage. I do that all the time. When I was cutting sitcoms, there were two ways that I would cut. We had ScriptSync, but we also had a live switching feature, where you could play all four cameras at once, and go A, B, C, X, not D camera, X is the fourth camera.

Richard Schwadel:

So, I would go and A, C, X, B, whatever, and play something. And I would only go 20 seconds before I knew I was going to pull something up or change it. Oftentimes, it would be 10 seconds. Even in a live play sitcom, where you think the timing is great, and all, and it’s awesome, it’s not. There are frames to be pulled out. There’s a lot of work to be done in material.

Richard Schwadel:

And so, you can fix it. But you got to have it there to fix, right? I read this in the Art of the Cut, which is a great book. “Your goal is to make the scene play as though it evolved, not that it was constructed.” I think that’s a great piece of advice.

Maja Jacob:

That’s awesome.

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah.

Maja Jacob:

Another question here is, do you have any rules that you follow regarding editing comedy?

Richard Schwadel:

No, keep it funny. Keep it moving and keep it funny. Story, obviously, you have to tell the story. So, you have to walk the line of does the story get in the way of the comedy, or the comedy get in the story, or is it how is that balanced? Hopefully, it’s balanced in the writing, and not falling on you. Because if it falls on you, in that case, I think you’re in trouble.

Maja Jacob:

Do you have some clips for us? Tell us what we’re going to see, and why? And I’m just going to give everyone an FYI, there is some explicit language in some of these clips. So, just giving you some warning. So, why don’t you tell us about some of the clips you’re going to be showing us today?

Richard Schwadel:

Okay. I’m going to show you from three different shows. I worked on a show a couple years ago called Hit the Road that nobody knows about with Jason Alexander, who was the lead, and also the show runner, and the creator. And then, I’ve got a clip of a Disney MOW that starred Zendaya, broader goofier comedy. And last, I’ve got a couple of clips of Loudermilk, which is what I did with the Farrelly’s. I’ve cut two seasons of Loudermilk with them.

Maja Jacob:

And then, you went on to edit the Quibi TV series with the Farrelly brothers, which is pretty awesome.

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah. I call it a serialized feature, not a TV series, but-

Maja Jacob:

Yeah. So, let’s start off with the first clip.

Richard Schwadel:

The first clip needs a lot of setup, the others won’t. So, Hit the Road. It was 10 episodes of basically, a dirty, nasty Partridge Family Band’s adventures on a tour bus touring around the US. I’m going to show a clip from the pilot towards the end. The story of the pilot was they’re about to start a US tour as an opening act for an old rock and roller who’s doing a tour, and the rock and roller dies midway into the episode.

Richard Schwadel:

So, Jason Alexander, his character is Ken, comes up with a plan for a memorial concert for the guy, but needs publicity. So, he goes to a local radio station, and tries to get a plug for publicity, begs, brings a kid with him for sympathy. It doesn’t really work. But the station salesguy he’s talking to says, “I’ll go ask the manager. We’ll see what he can do. But I got to tell you he’s a really weird dude.”

Richard Schwadel:

So, Jason Alexander says, “Yeah, whatever, I’m in rock and roll, I’ve seen it all.” The guy comes back, and tells him that the manager agreed to do the publicity, but only if Ken gives him a hand job. They actually showed him giving the hand job.

Maja Jacob:

That must have been interesting to cut.

Richard Schwadel:

It’s pretty funny. It’s sad because it went through many permutations because of the subject matter. And it ended up getting a little bit milktoasted down, but it’s still pretty funny. So, this is the scene that plays right after. And what I really love about this scene is the acting is amazing.

Richard Schwadel:

Pay attention to their reactions, their reactions to one another are great. It’s a scene between Ken and his wife, Meg. So, they’re all part of the band. They’re all singers. The kids aren’t in this part. But the ebb and flow of the scene is the way it was written and directed is just awesome.

Maja Jacob:

And this is a recent show, right?

Richard Schwadel:

  1. And just to give everybody a little context, the Harvey Weinstein story dropped. Ronan Farrow’s stuff dropped the week this show came out. And this show was specifically written to be politically incorrect, and really over the top, and pushing boundaries. And the critics could not get behind it. They trashed it. And also, was in the AT&T audience network, which barely anybody knows about. I don’t know where it is now. It might be on Crave. I’m not sure.

 

[Clip plays]

Maja Jacob:

That was really funny. All right. So, we’re going to open up to questions. Hi.

Audience Question:

First off, thanks for doing this. This is great. That was an awesome cliff. I really like that. Is there a conscious effort to make Jason Alexander less George from Seinfeld? Because I feel like he’s always in that realm, and I don’t know if it was a conscious decision about that.

Richard Schwadel:

I think when he gets worked up, he goes into that mode. You just can’t help but think he’s George. I never once mentioned the name George Costanza because I’m sure he is so fucking sick of hearing those two words. No. to answer your question, Jerry Levine was the director. He’s an amazingly talented guy. He’s done everything from Sunny in Philadelphia to Everybody Hates Chris.

Richard Schwadel:

He’s done dramas, Hawaii Five-O. The way they shot this show was a 350-page script, which is all 10 episodes, and they just shoot it for 40 days. There were 10 really different episodes. I agree with you. He’s very George Costanza like in that scene. And he’s not that way throughout the series. So, yeah, I think it is more about that scene.

Maja Jacob:

So, Nancy has a question. Nancy.

Audience Question:

Hey, thank you, Richard. And thank you, Maja, and everybody, this is great. Richard, I’m wondering if you could talk a little bit about what your creative influence is as an editor in comedy. And if you’re given a nice breath to be creative with the material, and have the input to maybe change something up, or I don’t know…

Richard Schwadel:

I do it regardless, like you’re always fighting the schedule. In television, in particular, there’s never enough time to do anything the way you’d really like to do it in terms of living with something. We all know, if you cut something, let it sit in the drawer for a while, for a week, and then take it out of the drawer again, and look at it, you’re going to see all kinds of stuff that you’re going to want to change. And sadly, we don’t have that time to do that in the schedule. So, what I do is cut with my gut, and I find what I think is the funniest stuff. But if there’s a scene that I’m not sure of, I’ll always do different versions of it, or at least the part that I’m not sure about.

Richard Schwadel:

I’ll go to my assistants, or I’ll go to other people, or I’ll let it sit for a while, and then look at them. Or sometimes I won’t show anybody, and I’ll show the director when they come in and go, “Yeah, I’m not sure work the way I did it the first time, but I want you to look at this version, tell me if this is any better.” So, I think doing alts on things is a good idea.

Richard Schwadel:

But in terms of the creativity of it, you’re following the script, but you’re also following the movie, or show that you’re seeing as the editor. And we all know oftentimes, it’s two different things. It’s a joke. Typically, they’re shooting, a half-hour comedy would be three-and-a-half, four days of shooting. And then, you’d have about a day, day-and-a-half, maybe two days, if you’re lucky, after they wrap shooting to do your cut, and then the director’s in the room.

Richard Schwadel:

With these shows, because it was such a different schedule, I had a little more time because they shot 40 days in a row. And then, we figured out roughly, me and the post-super, “Okay, I need about this much time.” So, I could go back, and massage things, and look at things again, which really helped. But the typical television schedule is brutal. It’s really brutal.

Richard Schwadel:

And I’m going to show you in a bit, some paperwork from Loudermilk. When you get six hours of dailies, and you’ve got to cut ideally, all of that in one day. It’s really hard, and it’s really hard to keep a fresh eye without getting exhausted. So, yeah, there’s that.

Maja Jacob:

Thanks, Nancy.

Richard Schwadel:

Sure.

Maja Jacob:

I’m going to allow Daria to speak now.

Maja Jacob:

Hey, Daria.

Richard Schwadel:

Hi, Daria.

Audience Question:

Hi, guys. Hi. Richard, when you were talking earlier about finding those great moments, like the Adam McKay stuff you were talking about, would you ever prioritize something that is super hilarious over obvious discontinuity?

Richard Schwadel:

Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Continuity is so out the window now. Watch a Scorsese movie, watch Curb Your Enthusiasm, Curb jumps all over the place. I think if you’re working with somebody, and this often happens in the TV movie realm, where people go, “Oh, that glass moved. That’s a real problem for us.”

Richard Schwadel:

It’s like, “Okay, so we’ll put the glass where it should be, and you’ll have a crappy performance, do you prefer that?” Most of the smart people working in television today, they’ll pay attention to it, but they won’t let that dictate a performance change, I found.

Maja Jacob:

So, we have a question here for Paul St. Amand.

Audience Question:

I thought those clips were hilarious, by the way. Like laugh out loud moments, so that was great. Thank you.

Richard Schwadel:

Oh, cool.

Paul St. Amand:

Question that I have. Have you thought of, or maybe you’ve already done this, but transitioning from editor to directing?

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah. I’ve done some directing. It’s really hard now to be an old white guy, and get a job directing. Even people who are pretty busy, normally, aren’t working the landscape has changed. And it’s time for more women, and younger people, and people of color who are getting their chances now. So, I’m willing to step aside, and not fight that. It was something that I tried.

Richard Schwadel:

And I directed a Drew Carey Show. I directed a couple episodes of funny show that David Steinberg did here in Vancouver called Big Sound. It was about the music business. I directed a Flava Flav sitcom, which Daria knows well, because she worked on that as well. And also, for me, I’m not a real political person. And in that world, you have to really enjoy politics, and work politics.

Richard Schwadel:

It’s fun. It’s without a doubt, it’s really fun to do. But I don’t have any aspirations anymore. If somebody offered it to me, I would do it. I don’t think I would take a job though now saying, “Well, I want two episodes.” My advice, though, is if you’re an editor, and you want to direct is take an acting class, and understand how to talk to actors, and what their process is, because I did it, and it helped me immensely.

Maja Jacob:

That’s good advice. Definitely good advice.

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah. It was scary as hell, but worth doing.

Maja Jacob:

So, we are going to show another clip now. And this is from Zapped, and is the actress name is Zedekiah or how do you-

Richard Schwadel:

Zendaya.

Maja Jacob:

Zendaya. She’s a huge star now. She’s in the Spider-Man films, so you will recognize her.

Richard Schwadel:

So, what you’re going to see, I’ll just tell you the story briefly. She downloads a phone app because she’s living with this family with an out of control dog. And she thinks that this app is for controlling dogs. It makes this weird sound. But something happens to her phone before she downloads the app.

Richard Schwadel:

It gets thrown out a window, and weird electrical stuff happens. It slides down a solar panel, and it magically becomes a magical phone that doesn’t control dogs. It controls something else, and you’ll see what it controls in a minute. So, I selected this because much goofier style of comedy, obviously, less grounded in reality; Disney.

Richard Schwadel:

But more importantly, this was cut for score, and the score really helped drive the comedy of this scene, and call out to James Jandrisch’s score in this. He’s an amazing composer. He’s brilliant. And he did an incredible job in this show.

[Clip plays]

Maja Jacob:

So, do we have any questions regarding that clip? That’s the school in Vancouver?

Richard Schwadel:

I think that was like in Maple Ridge or something. It was out of the zone somewhere.

Maja Jacob:

All right. So, that’s obviously a different type of comedy compared to what we just saw with Hit the Road. It’s more of family-type comedy. Is there a difference between cutting family type comedy like that, compared to what we just saw in Hit the Road?

Richard Schwadel:

Well, that one in particular was more difficult because you had to have the phone sound before we saw how it affected the person. And then, you had to have the person do this. And then, all of that was a real tricky timing thing. And I remember in that instance, the sound, I can’t remember what I had temped in, I temped in something, like a whistle-y thing.

Richard Schwadel:

And it went back and forth once picture was locked for weeks, and weeks, and weeks before they finally decided what the sound was going to be. Obviously, it had to fit in the hole that was designed for it. But I noticed sometimes they would pitch it down at the end, which is cool. Again, it’s just make the jokes land, and play funny. I think there were certainly more rack focuses that I thought worked really well in that clip, which I like using if they work.

Maja Jacob:

Okay. So, let’s move on to our next clip, Loudermilk.

Richard Schwadel:

Loudermilk is a show that was created by Peter Farrelly and Bobby Mort. Bobby Mort used to work on The Colbert Report. I guess he started writing TV and-

Maja Jacob:

And do you want to explain to the audience if they don’t know who the Farrelly brothers are? What kind of movies they’ve done?

Richard Schwadel:

They did Dumb and Dumber, which put them on the map. They did There’s Something About Mary, they did The Three Stooges, Shallow Hal, the last movie they did was actually just Peter Farrelly. He directed Green Book, which won-

Maja Jacob:

Which won the Oscar.

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah. It won two. I think it won two. One for writing and one for, isn’t it win best picture?

Maja Jacob:

Well, we were working on Loudermilk together, that’s the season two, and it was — you were editing with him remotely while he was in LA. He was working on Green Book and some capacity. And we had no idea at that time that he was going to be nominated for an Oscar. So, that’s pretty cool. There’s another thing I feel like nowadays, remote editing with directors is a big thing now, as well.

Richard Schwadel:

Well, the funniest thing is I worked remotely. So, I did season two and season three of Loudermilk. We finished season three sometime towards the end of 2019. So, I did almost two years on Zoom. And when all this happened with COVID, people go, “Do you know Zoom? Can I call you with Zoom? I was like, “Yeah, I don’t want to Zoom.”

Richard Schwadel:

I had enough Zoom. I’ve been doing it too much every day. No, Zoom has been a great tool. But I think I worked with him for three, or four days, or a week. And then, he was off onto his next project. He’s a really busy guy. He’s constantly doing multiple things.

Maja Jacob:

And then, after Loudermilk, they called you up for the Quibi film long-

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah. I really was hoping that Quibi show would have dropped on so that we could play some clips because there’s some really great stuff, but I can’t, it hasn’t. So, I can only talk about some stuff.

Maja Jacob:

For the people that don’t know, I’ve worked with Richard on a couple of shows. And so, what he would do is, as an assistant, I would get all the paperwork, and he’d have a certain way that he would like things in his binder. So, you’ll see some of the paperwork they get.

Maja Jacob:

And then, every editor has their own way of putting binders together, even Avid bins. So, I actually got used to the way Richard would organize his Avid bins, and then I adopted a lot of that into how I edit now because of the way Richard did it. I don’t know if you know that Richard?

Richard Schwadel:

No, I didn’t. But then, yeah, everybody has got their own, I like my lined script and facing pages open. So, when I open, I see both. Some people like the facing pages at the back of the script. Every editor has got their own preferences. On Loudermilk, they would just because there were so many speaking roles in the group, I think there were like eight or nine principal actors, they, as directors, neither of them like to cross the line.

Richard Schwadel:

So, often, they’ll be shooting A, B, and C camera for one setup, for each of the setups so that sometimes the C camera may be rolling. You may have eight minutes of a scene, and the C camera may only be for two lines for an angle that was over somebody’s shoulder, or whatever. So, as an editor, you have to learn how to watch multiple-sunk cameras.

Richard Schwadel:

And know – you figure out where they’re needed, and where they’re not needed. And because I came from multicamera, I watch group clips. So, if there’s three cameras, I’ll watch them all at the same time. And I’ll make marks while I’m watching the dailies. So, for this scene in general, Loudermilk, I figured out, it was about a 50-to-1 shooting ratio.

Richard Schwadel:

So, for every one minute of finished material, there’s 50 minutes that are shot. So, my process is, the first thing I do is I look at the daily progress report. And I’m assuming most of you know how to read this. I’ll just go over it briefly of some stuff here. Here’s the biggie in this one. So, in this day, they shot 13 and three-eighths pages. That’s just huge. It’s a huge amount of material.

Richard Schwadel:

As soon as I saw that, I went, “Uh-oh.” So, I knew that I probably wouldn’t finish this day that I’d have to split it off some of it to the next day. Next, I’ll look at how many setups there were, 68 setups. So, a normal day is what, 30, 35? Huge, huge amounts of cameras, camera angles. And then, the other thing I’ll look at right next to it are the running times.

Richard Schwadel:

So, the estimated time is what the script supervisor estimated when she read the last version of the script. But there might be four versions after it. So, you never really know, ideally, how accurate this number is. You hope it’s accurate. The actual running time is what she, or he timed on set, and figured that’s how long it actually runs in production, not as edited.

Richard Schwadel:

And then, the plus minus is whether the difference between these two. In this, because they shoot a 350-page scripts, basically, my take going in was, “Guys, you can’t worry about our timings in editing, because there’s no way to tell how to time out a show, because you’re shooting every episode. You’re mixing everything up, you’re block shooting. We can’t time out an episode because the tail end of the episode may be all the group scenes, we have no clue.”

Richard Schwadel:

So, they’re like, “Don’t worry, we’re writing long.” So, we didn’t have to worry about that, thankfully, too much. And then, here, I’ll look at the scenes fully credited down here. And the first one is the monster. It’s six and two-eighths pages, seven minutes long. That’s a lot of work. That’s a full day right there. And ultimately, I had what, 10… I had, on this day, they shot a half of an episode basically, more than half of an episode. So, it can be incredibly overwhelming. So, when the-

Maja Jacob:

Especially, when you see the setups for the one-

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah. So, here’s setups. And if you look, I’ll scroll down here. So, just pay attention to the sevens. This is all seven, all seven to here. So, there were 33 setups.

Maja Jacob:

Of one scene.

Richard Schwadel:

In one scene. Yeah. I knew going in, I had my work cut out for me. It depends upon how I’m feeling on the day, whether I want to start with the big scene or not. But if I didn’t start with it, I would certainly start with the smaller scene to at least get going, and not get bogged down.

Richard Schwadel:

So, I would have done probably this one, one and three-eighths pages if I didn’t start cutting the big scene. So, then I would look at the lined script. I’m assuming all of you know how this works. I’ll just tell you briefly if you don’t. Let me just get my drawing tool here.

Maja Jacob:

So, a lot of squiggly lines and a lot of colors.

Richard Schwadel:

Anytime you see a straight line, that means that person is speaking on camera. Anytime you see a squiggly line, that means that they’re not speaking on camera. So, that means at this point here, this guy Tony, the first line isn’t covered in this take right here. I looked at this and went, “Holy shit,” holy crap, I mean. And because they had to dupe a page, because there was another setup here. So, it’s a tremendous amount of overwhelming things when you look at the entire thing, and you just go, “Oh my God, there’s so much-“

Maja Jacob:

This is not normal. This is not what you would normally see, maybe on a Farrelly’s.

Richard Schwadel:

With the Farrelly’s on the big group scenes, this is fairly normal, when there’s a lot of people talking. But also, this is a really long scene. This is a seven-page scene. So, then I would look at the facing page, which gives me the information that I will take into account, but not cut by, and I’ll tell you why. I use the facing pages as a general flow of information for me to know, and any red flags.

Richard Schwadel:

And also, it gives me a lay of the land looking at it where I go, “Okay, this is a long take, this is a short take, this has a lot of resets.” And for instance, right here. So, this is how long the scene ran on these three cameras. And then, as soon as you go down here, you go, “Oh, they did some resets from six minutes to 15 minutes.” So, this is a great example of a director saying, seeing in the script, director loves this take.

Richard Schwadel:

Okay, I’ve got a 15-minute take with two resets on a seven-page scene, he or she really loves the entire take top to bottom, no way. And with every project, it’s different. With the Farrelly’s, I do know, they like the editors to work off the last take. Because they don’t stop until they know they’re happy with what they’ve got. And so, typically, they do like, I don’t know, four takes, but resets in between stuff.

Richard Schwadel:

Again, what should have been like a six, seven-minute take, I’ve got nine minutes, I’ve got seven minutes, and I got eight minutes. It’s just a tremendous amount of material. So, the way that I attack it is, especially in a scene like this, I’m going to go back to the lined script here real quick. So, the way that I would attack this to stay sane, because here’s the deal.

Richard Schwadel:

If you’re an editor and you get all this, then you get, this day I know is over six hours of material. So, even if I watch just this scene, which was four plus hours, there’s no way I’d remember everything. It’s impossible. I would make markers. I put green markers on lines that I like. But it’s not going to help me when I have 33 setups, over four hours of material, and seven pages.

Richard Schwadel:

It’s too overwhelming. So, my process is I work in blocks. And what I’ll do is I’ll look at the script. I’ll read it through, and see how far I want to cut to. And so, in this instance, I took it to the point where this guy was telling his story and stopped. And then, Loudermilk, the lead calls out the guy who just walked in the room. So, it was a little over two pages.

Richard Schwadel:

So, what I would do then is I would go through all the takes up until that moment on the next page. And then, I would start editing that. And one thing I learned in this show in particular, that’s handy is if you’ve got three readings of a line, and you like all three, cut all three in. And then, move to the next line of dialogue.

Richard Schwadel:

And then, you can build a scene that way, watch it, and as you watch the scene, you’ll deselect stuff, and go, “No, I like that other one better. I like that one better,” or whatever. So, you may have two pages of this cut, which normally should have been a little under two minutes, and it may be three minutes because you’ve got the same person saying the same line.

Richard Schwadel:

It might be two different sizes. It might be funnier on one size, but the other size might be the one that you think you want to use. So, I found for me, it really helps to cut them both in, ignore it as I’m building it, until I’m watching it, and really deciding before I move forward to build the next part of the scene. And also, I always cut with waveforms initially when I build my first cut.

Richard Schwadel:

Because it’s much easier to cheat dialogue. You can tell immediately where presence is, and where there’s beats. And you can just get the flow of what it looks like, how the scene plays by looking at the waveforms also. I highly suggest working that way. I never cut music, or sound effects, or anything until I’m happy with my cut of the scene. I always keep it dry as long as possible.

Maja Jacob:

Now, did you want to show the corresponding scene of this paperwork?

Richard Schwadel:

So, this was day 10 of my first time working on this show. And if I had gotten this scene today, I would have cut it differently. I’m not happy ultimately with the way it is. Part of it, I realized after watching it, and looking at the script was how it was written. Part of it is just how I’ve evolved in my work. Some things that I would probably do a little bit different now.

Maja Jacob:

It’s always a learning process. You’re always changing it up, right?

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah.

Maja Jacob:

Even after how many years of editing?

Richard Schwadel:

Don’t ask.

 

[Clip plays]

Maja Jacob:

That’s really funny. And it’s just crazy how many reactions, and which reactions to choose. So, that’s the question like, which reactions do you choose with such a giant group like that?

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah. That’s where I’ve gotten caught up looking at it again. And I discovered part of it is the writing, because what I would have preferred to do was to hold off seeing him with the dart in his head, for as long as possible. That’s what I would want to do now. But the problem is, is he comes in the room, and he sits down, and the other guy starts telling a story.

Richard Schwadel:

But the way it’s played is everybody’s looking at the dude with a dart in his head. And so, if you play that entire thing without seeing him, it still wouldn’t work very well. Because it would go on so long, you can’t just cut to reactions of people while this dude is telling a story, wondering, what are they looking at? What are they looking at for so long? So, part was in the writing, but that was a really tough scene to do.

Maja Jacob:

How many versions of that scene did you end up doing?

Richard Schwadel:

We worked on it for a while, because I think we pulled some time out of it, too. But it’s still a long scene, it goes on, I think it’s still like five-and-a-half or six minutes. There’s a whole second half to it. It’s weird. One thing I find sometimes is, I don’t know if anybody else feels this way. But you may be successful at something that you cut, and your producers, and directors go, “Yeah, that’s great. We’re good.”

Richard Schwadel:

But you’re working so fast, you’re on such a tight schedule, that a week later, you may see things you may want to change the scene. You might find better things, just because that’s the nature of the business. The longer you live with it, the better it can get. So, I find sometimes the schedule is frustrating in that way.

Richard Schwadel:

And that I probably would have tried to take a whack at that scene again. But Peter said, it’s good. Let’s move on. And then, once it goes to the network, if you totally change a scene, I mean it’s done sometimes, but they want to know what you’ve done.

Maja Jacob:

So, we have a question here from Alad. Okay.

Audience Question:

How are you doing, Richard?

Richard Schwadel:

Good. How are you?

Audience Question:

Good. I wonder, so with a scene like this, where it really is big, and there’s a lot of players, can you speak a little bit about how you strategize before you jump in? And what’s your thought process when you’re trying to think about how to tackle a scene that’s as big as this?

Richard Schwadel:

Well, number one is story, how do you tell the story. In this particular scene, it wasn’t just telling the story, it was trying to protect the joke. Try and find some funny reactions, try and keep the dialogue of the story going, the guy talking about how he avoided taking a drink. And then, once the beat of the scene changes, and the guy, Mugsy, starts admitting or denying, “Hey, everything’s fine.”

Richard Schwadel:

It’s playing that reality from his point of view, but playing the reactions off of everybody else who knows, no, nothing’s fine with you, dude. He’s totally oblivious to it. So, then, it’s just again, looking at a gazillion cameras, and pulling stuff you like from those cameras, pulling the reactions you like.

Maja Jacob:

Is it like on a timeline, would you just have all the three clips there, group, and then just drag them onto the timeline as your favorites?

Richard Schwadel:

I typically mark an in and out, and cut it in. Like I was saying earlier, I might have three lines, or four. Typically, it’s lines, not looks, but I might have three versions of something that I move on to the next line of dialogue. And then, pare it down from there. If it’s a montage, I will make select reels of the material.

Richard Schwadel:

I usually don’t make select reels for dialogue, some people do. Some people line up every take of dialogue, and other feature editors, who have their assistants do that. Insane, but it’s one way to work, I guess.

Maja Jacob:

Jana is going to ask another question here.

Audience Question:

So, what was the deadline you had for this specific scene? Because you were saying that you took a while to work on that. I just wanted to know the deadline you work.

Richard Schwadel:

Typically, your deadline is the day you get it, because it’s not that you’re showing it to anybody, but you’ve got dailies coming the next day. So, if you only do half of that scene, and you’ve got that half of the scene, plus two other scenes that you have to do the next day, you’re going to you’re going to fall behind.

Richard Schwadel:

Which I do on occasion, and as long as the schedule allows for it. If it’s day 10 they’re shooting 40 days, and I look ahead at the schedule and go, “Oh, there’s going to be an easy day on Thursday. Here I am on Tuesday, I can stretch this out if I need to.” But one big consideration is, if they’re at a location that they’re about to leave, you have to have stuff cut up to camera.

Richard Schwadel:

Because somebody may phone you and say, “Are we good? Do we need any pickups? Do we need any inserts? Do we need blah-blah-blah, whatever?” Because we’re leaving the location, or this is that actor’s last day. So, you have to be aware of that too.

Maja Jacob:

And then, we have a written question here. If you’re running out of time, in many cases, you mentioned, and you’re happy with, let’s say, all eight of the takes for one line, are there any tips to avoid having to watch all eight takes before moving on to the next setup?

Richard Schwadel:

I would never cut all eight, and the most I would do would be three. Because to me, there’s always one that works the best. I would look at the three, and make a decision. And if I felt like I was unsure, then I would probably mark that section to do an alternate cut on it, and use the other take.

Maja Jacob:

And then, how many hours in a day is your typical work day?

Richard Schwadel:

For dailies, it’s about eight hours, eight or nine hours. I tend to work pretty fast. It depends upon how many hours of material I get. If I get three hours of dailies, it’s an eight-hour day. If I get six hours of dailies, it’s an 11-hour day.

Maja Jacob:

Okay. And then, here’s a question. Could you elaborate more on how you cheat sound? So, we’re talking off-screen dialogue. You mentioned first learning of this from film editors on the Barney Miller Show. So, explain how you would cheat sounds.

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah. A good trick for cheating sound. Typically, what I mean by that is stuffing dialogue from one take into another take. So, let’s say I’ve got a funny line that’s in a two shot, but I want to be on the single. So, I’ll cut in a single, and I’ll steal the dialogue from the two shot. If it lines up, using the waveform, you cut with the waveform on track one.

Richard Schwadel:

And then, you take the line on track two. And you cut it in, and you just move it frame by frame until it’s in sync. You can watch it, and gauge it, and then you listen to it. And it’ll either work or it won’t. And oftentimes, it usually works pretty well.

Maja Jacob:

So, basically, you’re actually seeing them speak, and you’re cheating the audio underneath it even though it’s a different take.

Richard Schwadel:

Yes. And then, the other cheating is when you’re on someone’s back, you can cheat any line of dialogue, as long as their chin isn’t hobbling, moving up, and down a lot, and it’s a short line. Anytime I’m stuffing dialogue into somebody over the shoulder or whatever, I’m really trying to make sure that it looks like they’re actually saying it.

Maja Jacob:

Now, on this show, ScriptSync was not used. But you mentioned that you used ScriptSync on the Quibi series The Now. Explain why that didn’t work on The Now because Bill Murray is actually an actor in that show.

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah. So, ScriptSync is an amazing tool. The big issue with ScriptSync is, it’s incredibly labor intensive for the assistants, as anybody who’s done it knows. And they need time built into the schedule, you have to fight for that time before you even start. When you’re looking at a schedule with the Post Super and go, “I want to use ScriptSync on this show. I need it, here’s why.

Richard Schwadel:

And we’re going to need to build time into the schedule.” Nine times out of 10, they’re going to say we can’t build the time into the schedule. With the Quibi show, because of how they were shooting it, and the amount of time I fought for it, and we did it. But we didn’t do it on everything. And I was hoping to be able to cut with it for my work because there was so much material.

Richard Schwadel:

The only thing we ended up using it for was director cuts, and producer cuts beyond the director cut, which was still great. Because when you’re working, and they want to hear six different reads of that line, rather than having to cut them all up. You just go bing, bang, boom, and you can listen to them. So, the bane of ScriptSync is somebody going off book.

Richard Schwadel:

Meaning, saying different dialogue than what’s scripted because it uses a phonetic algorithm. And what I’ve since learned is you can line a script for ScriptSync if there’s improv, and put markers manually in it. And by turning off the phonetics, and just so, if you’ve got a big long improv scene, you could ScriptSync it, and put the markers roughly where things are being said.

Richard Schwadel:

So, what happened to us with Bill Murray is first of all, I was amazed when I found out he was in this Quibi show. It was like I was just floored that I got to cut Bill Murray.

Maja Jacob:

I was so jealous. I was like, “What?” Yeah.

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah. It’s an amazing cast. It’s Bill Murray, Daryl Hannah, Dave Franco, O’Shea Jackson.

Maja Jacob:

Pete Davidson.

Richard Schwadel:

Pete Davidson has a short role. He’s hysterical in it. And this guy named Jimmy Tatro, who’s hysterical. This guy is going to be a star in no time. He’s so funny. So, Bill played this. It’s called The Now. He plays a hippy psychologist. He’s got a little rat tail. Dave Franco goes to him because Franco’s suicidal. And so, I think there’s about four scenes with the two of them, some of them fairly long.

Richard Schwadel:

And then, there’s a couple of other scenes with Bill. And so, when I got my first day’s dailies with Bill, it was like, “What’s happening here? He’s not saying what’s scripted.” It was like, “Where is he going?” And I went, “Okay, that’s take one.” Then I go to take two. Different than what he did in take one, and still not what was scripted.

Richard Schwadel:

I think I did a cut of a scene. And then, I went to set, and I cornered Pete. And I took him aside, and I said, “What’s the deal with Bill?” And I said, “I’m trying to cut his stuff, it’s great, but it’s not.” He goes, “Here’s the deal with Bill, you give him the script. And then, he does what he’s going to do. And you work with him from there.”

Richard Schwadel:

So, I was hoping to ScriptSync Bill scenes, we didn’t. What I ended up doing was having them transcribed. Because I figured that there would be a lot of work in those scenes. There was no other way to go through them without having a transcription of what his actual dialogue was.

Maja Jacob:

And that must have been tough choosing the best takes of it. I bet there’s a lot of good takes.

Richard Schwadel:

There was a lot of good stuff. They were long. Some of the scenes, the network felt like they were too long because it’s Quibi, and everything has to be short. A couple of our episodes were 10 minutes, which is their maximum, and they felt seven was ideal. So, they were always shooting to try and get to that seven-minute mark. There was one line of Bill’s that I loved.

Richard Schwadel:

And he did it three or four times, all of them really similar. But Pete ended up changing it. And I was like, “No, I really want that one.” And I tried to fight for it, but lost. But they were so close, but it was just something that got me that that’s, again, where you get into comedy words. It’s like a little bit inflection, or a little bit of pause makes me laugh more than another take.

Maja Jacob:

We have a question here with Leslie, and we’re going to let Leslie speak.

Audience Question:

Hi, there. Thank you, Richard. I was just curious if your experience with you being the type of thing where everybody’s got a slightly different taste or take on things. Suggestions that you have with dealing with executives or broadcasters who maybe don’t fully get the joke that you and the director trying to put across?

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah. That typically is up to, if it’s a series, it’s up to your show runner to fight that. What I found with series is the show runners, for me, whether it was Jason Alexander or Peter, if they didn’t agree with a note, they would fight it. And they would give their reason why they weren’t going to do it.

Richard Schwadel:

If it’s a TV movie, I found more often than not, it’s more up to the editor to fight over notes. Because more often than not, people tend to not fight notes as much, or they fight different notes, and maybe are willing to lose some things that you as an editor might find more valuable.

Maja Jacob:

Tell me about in The Now show, you are telling me about this one scene, the bookie scene. Just tell me about the bookie scene because this is like a typical, what do I do with this scene? Especially, with like working with Peter like, “Oh my God, how do I cut this?”

Richard Schwadel:

This was a really scary moment for me, a confidence moment. So, I had a scene. It was an actor. He was a secondary role, and he’s a bookie. He’s a Korean bookie guy, middle aged. And the scene is he goes to meet with Dave Franco to tell him that Dave Franco is responsible for his dead brother’s debt. And it’s like 70 grand or something.

Richard Schwadel:

Two people in the scene, four pages, and about four-and-a-half hours of dailies. I noticed immediately that there was a really big disparity in how this guy played his character. So, take the first few takes. He was very straight, and dry, and very businesslike. And then, as they went along, he got a little goofier and looser. And then, the last takes, he was broad as hell and nutso.

Richard Schwadel:

And it was such a huge difference. I was going, “I don’t know what to do here.” Because usually, these guys like to work with the last take. So, I just started building the scene. And I decided in watching it, the guy punches Dave Franco twice. The first time comes out of nowhere. He leans in, he goes, “There’s something you should know about me.” Boom. And he says, “I’m mean.”

Richard Schwadel:

And then, Franco goes, “What the hell, man?” And then, the guy says something else, and punches him again. And totally out of nowhere. So, what he did was in his giddy takes, he got, it was funny after he punched him, I noticed. He smiled, and laughed, and got happy. And so, what I figured was, and I thought, “This is what I think they want. But this is what I think I should do.”

Richard Schwadel:

It’s a combination of the two. As I played the bookie straight, all the way up until the punch, and as soon as he punched Franco, all of a sudden, he went nuts. He went giddy, and happy, and this guy just went nuts when he got violent. I cut that scene. I cut it that way. I showed it to my assistants. They laughed. And I was like, “I hope they’re laughing at the right places and all.” It feels like they are.

Richard Schwadel:

I had to work with Peter that day. And the scene was directed by his brother, by Bobby. Peter was off doing something else. I was working with Pete on something else. And I asked him, I said, “Have you looked at the dailies? What’s your take on this Jun Ho character? I’m not sure what to do.” And he goes, “Well, show me. Have you cut anything?” I said, “Yeah.”

Richard Schwadel:

And he goes, “Well, let me see it.” And I was like, “I’m not sure I want to show this to you.” He goes, “No, let me just look at it.” And so, I showed it to him. And he was like, “This is a great first cut. Love it. It’s great. I love the guy.” And what they ended up doing was a later scene that they were shooting, they said, “Play it straight until you punch the guy, and then go crazy.” So, it became this guy’s signature move. He’s really funny in it. It’s really-

Maja Jacob:

So, you created his character for the rest of… well, not I created, but-

Richard Schwadel:

Well, I didn’t create it, I chose it.

Maja Jacob:

You chose that.

Richard Schwadel:

I chose some options. And again, I went with my gut. It took a lot in that scene to decide, which way to do it. But then I went, “Okay, this is how I’m going to try and do it.” And I don’t even think I cut an alt in that scene. I think I just went, there’s four-and-a-half hours of dailies, this is going to be a long haul, but I’m going to do it this way. Yeah.

Maja Jacob:

And the way you chose it ended up being what that character was going to be throughout the rest of the series.

Richard Schwadel:

Well, no, there were two fight scenes. It was that and something else. But they liked it so much. That’s the way they went with the other fight scene, which I thought was cool. Yeah. Still, the amount of years I’ve been doing this, I still was really nervous when showing him that scene because there were so many options, and they were so different.

Maja Jacob:

For animation editing, such as dialogue for The Simpsons, what would you say was your biggest takeaway from this experience? Was it beneficial learning more about the editing process for comedy animation?

Richard Schwadel:

The Simpsons? No, to answer your question. The reason why is the edict on The Simpsons was no air. You just cut tight, tight, tight, tight, tight, tight, tight, no pauses, anything, unless somebody was walking and not talking. And so, when I worked there was a long time ago, they would record all the dialogue. They would do it in one giant room.

Richard Schwadel:

So, the entire cast, and the guest stars would come in, do the read. They record it for, like they wouldn’t re-record it. That was the official recording. And then, they get passed off the editor. And the editor would cut it together, and then they would listen to it as a radio show. Give suggestions on takes, changing takes, but it was always tighter, tighter, tighter, lose the air, lose the air, lose the air.

Richard Schwadel:

There really isn’t much I learned on that show, other than they don’t like air. Just one aside, sadly, when I was there, I don’t remember what season, it was early on. Sam Simon, who was one of the creators of the show with Matt Groening. The two of them were not getting along. So, the editors have to screen with them separately. And then, sometimes you got conflicting notes. And it was like, “What do I do?”

Maja Jacob:

Oh, man. We have a question here from James. I’m going to read it. Hey, Richard, thanks for all the great clips. My question goes in a different direction. Many editors will reach a point in their career, whether at the beginning or later, where they have to go into interviews, and defend some of their credits on their resume.

Maja Jacob:

Whether it’d be to convince a producer that you can cut their type of genre, or attitudes towards certain networks that appear on your resume. Richard and I have talked briefly about this in the past. And I wonder if he had more to elaborate on this?

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah. I’ll tell you a quick story about, I think I told you this, James, I can’t remember. But when I got hired on Hit the Road, they wanted an LA editor. They wanted the tax credits, but I could just tell they didn’t want to hire anyone out of Vancouver because of experience. And so, I met with a director in person here. And we got along, and we bonded.

Richard Schwadel:

And then, he talked me up to the guys. So, Jason, and the other producers, and then I had to do a phone call interview with them. There were like seven people in the room, I could tell. And I was sinking because they’re looking at my resume going, “We only see hallmark and lifetime movies. You cut a couple of series in Vancouver, but you’ve only done TV movies.”

Richard Schwadel:

And I said, “Go to IMDb and go further down.” Because I knew they were all looking at IMDb, actually. And they go, “No, I only see something called The Debaters.” I go, “Farther down, farther down.” I kept saying, “Farther down. Find my sitcoms.” And then, finally they went to the sitcoms I had cut.

Richard Schwadel:

And I had to pull every name in the book that I had ever worked with, drop every single name to let them know that back when I was cutting in LA, I was on the pilot list, which they wouldn’t let any editor do pilots unless you were on some special network list. And I was on that list after having cut sitcoms. So, that was a real struggle. And yeah, the TV movies don’t bode well for high-end LA producers, I can tell you that.

Maja Jacob:

So, here’s a question for someone starting out. What advice would you give to someone who is just starting out, and wants to make their first step into the industry as an editor?

Richard Schwadel:

Cut as much as you can. You have a lot more opportunities than I had when I was starting. You can cut people’s shorts. You’ve got software on your computer now. You can edit. You can teach yourself how to cut it, and then put yourself out there, and offer your services to people. Because you only get better by doing more.

Maja Jacob:

And that goes into the next question here. What makes Avid the software of choice for so many editors, especially here in Vancouver? I’m an Avid user, but I find myself using Premiere Pro a lot more because it seems a bit more user friendly.

Richard Schwadel:

It’s a preference. I typically don’t change edit systems until I have to. I’ve done a Premiere course with Gary Lam, and I remember a bunch of people keep asking, “Why do we have to do it that way?” A lot of it had to do with assisting, and not editing. So, we stick with the stuff we’re comfortable with.

Richard Schwadel:

And as long as people keep using Avid, and Avid workflow, and it works, and they’re comfortable with it, and it’s proven, it’s going to stay around. I think Premiere had some workflow issues with features, and I think that probably scared some TV post-sups, I’m guess.

Maja Jacob:

Here’s a fun question. Have you ever cried?

Richard Schwadel:

I cry all the time from dailies.

Maja Jacob:

From dailies, or just being in the cutting room, have you ever, “Oh my God, this is just crazy,” have you ever got a little emotion or cried? Come on, you’re a man.

Richard Schwadel:

No, I cry from footage all the time. If it doesn’t hit me emotionally, then I shouldn’t be doing what I’m doing because I’m the audience. You guys have to remember that. You’re the audience, and if you’re not feeling it, the audience isn’t going to feel it. Yeah. This stuff hits me all the time. There’s a scene with Dave Franco where he breaks down, and yeah, I was crying watching it.

Maja Jacob:

But have you ever cried looking at your workload like, “Oh, my God, this is a lot?” That kind of crying.

Richard Schwadel:

I just swear a lot. I don’t cry. I just swear.

Maja Jacob:

Do you ever find the quality of your work suffers if you are not in love with the project? If this was ever the case, how do you overcome this obstacle?

Richard Schwadel:

It’s weird. Well, not weird. I have a work ethic where I do the best I can with what I have. So, if I’m doing a project that isn’t the greatest, not the greatest script, maybe not the greatest directed show, I will always put my best into it. Because I think the only thing you have in this business is your reputation.

Richard Schwadel:

If you come in with an attitude, and you only look at the last take of every setup, and only use that, you can work that way. And you know that you’ll change it with the director and all, but I think as editors, we should know the material, and know where the best takes are.

Maja Jacob:

Okay. What was it like working on Pee Wee’s Playhouse?

Richard Schwadel:

Oh, God, it was awesome. It was linear editing at the time. I can’t remember what the edit system was exactly. But there were so many different creative elements on that show. There were little animation bits. There were the puppeteers on set. There were all different kinds of puppets, and puppeteers, and voices.

Richard Schwadel:

It was so much fun to put together. It almost put itself together because the genius of Paul Reubens, and that nothing was left on the cutting room floor, basically. Except, for tying a few things here and there from what I remember. It was just everything was timed out. Everything worked. Everything was funny, and everything was well done.

Maja Jacob:

It was a good experience. It was a good experience.

Richard Schwadel:

Yeah, it was great. I wish it lasted longer. I only did three episodes. And what happened to him was just so sad. Yeah. He’s such a talented guy. Great show.

Maja Jacob:

Here’s a question. How are the work prospects in Vancouver for scripted editors these days pre-pandemic?

Richard Schwadel:

Pre-pandemic, good thing you prefaced that. It’s pretty good. Things with the streamers, Netflix in particular, things were really busy. Quibi was doing a number of projects here. Netflix, and then the usuals. Yeah. It’s the busiest Vancouver has been that I can remember since I’ve been here.

Maja Jacob:

And for someone that is looking to edit, I worked with Richard as an assistant. And now, I’m moving into editing and directing. Richard is, I feel like he’s my mentor and good friend. And he would bring me into his room. And he would ask me what I would think about the scene, and we’d sit down, and I’d watch it. And I’ll say, “Well, I like this part, or whatever. And I’m not sure about this.”

Maja Jacob:

So, it was a really great experience to collaborate with someone like Richard. And that’s something that I’m not sure that all editors in Vancouver have the time to do. But he took that time for me. So, I just wanted to say thank you so much for that. And you’ll be my mentor and friend for life because of that.

Richard Schwadel:

Well, assistants are so overwhelmed with what they have to do that I know a lot of them want to cut. And I always encourage them to cut scenes. And sometimes, they just don’t have the time to do it, or they don’t have the time to do it to the way they really would have wanted to. So, I just encourage, that’s how I learned too, is I jumped on edit systems when people weren’t on them, and cut material.

Richard Schwadel:

I think it’s really good to do that. And don’t be afraid of your editor criticizing it because that’s how you’re going to learn. If you do it, never look at how they cut it until after you’ve done yours, and you’ve discussed with them what they like, and what they don’t like about it.

Maja Jacob:

This has been a great chat here. And I hope everyone enjoyed the Zoom show, the Masters’ Comedy Zoom show, and yeah. So, I think that’s it. I hope everyone enjoyed it.

Richard Schwadel:

That was great. Thank you all. Great questions, and I appreciate everybody attending. And thank you, Maja.

Maja Jacob:

And thank you, Richard. And thank you Alison, and the CCE. You guys are awesome. And all the sponsors, Finale, Vancouver Post Alliance, IATSE 891, Annex Pro, Avid, and Integral Artists.

Richard Schwadel:

Yay.

Maja Jacob:

Thank you.

Richard Schwadel:

Right.

Maja Jacob:

Bye.

Richard Schwadel:

Bye.

Sarah Taylor:

Thank you so much for joining us today, and a big thanks goes to Richard and Maja. A special thanks goes to Trevor Mirosh, Jane MacRae and Maureen Grant. This episode was edited by Nicolas Lehmann. 

 

The main title sound design was created by Jane Tattersall. Additional ADR recording by Andrea Rusch. Original music provided by Chad Blain. This episode was mixed and mastered by Tony Bao. The CCE has been supporting Indspire – an organization that provides funding and scholarships to 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 a 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.

 

[Outtro]

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

Maureen Grant

Trevor Mirosh

Animé, produit et monté par

Sarah Taylor

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Musique originale par

Chad Blain

Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 001: Documentary Confidential

Episode 001: Documentary Confidential


Episode 001: Documentary Confidential

This episode is part one of a four-part series covering EditCon and features multi award winning documentary editors Mike Munn, CCE, Michéle Hozer, CCE and Nick Hector, CCE as they discuss their work with moderator Jay Prychidny, CCE.

The Editors Cut Episode 001 - documentary confidential - edticon panel

This episode features award winning drama editors Daria Ellerman, CCE, Lara Mazur, CCE and Nicole Ratcliffe, CCE as they discuss with moderator Karen Lam some of the impactful projects, they have worked on in their editing careers. 

Mike Munn, CCE

Mike shares his experiences working with Sarah Polley on Stories We Tell, which investigates her family secrets.

Michéle Hozer, CCE

Michéle talks about the challenges of being both the director and editor of Sponsorland, her film about Syrian refugees in Canada.

Nick Hector, CCE

Nick explains how he honoured the vision of Sharkwater Extinction, after the tragic death of director Rob Stewart.

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

Bryan Atkinson

the EditCon panelists

EditCon Series Produced by

Roslyn Kalloo

Animé par

Sarah Taylor

Design sonore du générique d'ouverture

Jane Tattersall

Preneur de son

Craig Scorgie

ADR Recording by

Andrea Rusch

Mixed by

James Bastable

Featuring Music by

Yung Koolade, Album House and Madrid

Sponsor Narration by

Paul Winestock

Photos by

Dino Harambasic

Commandité par

the DGC

Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 002: TV Editing in the Golden Age

Episode 002: TV Editing in the Golden Age


Episode 002: TV Editing in the Golden Age

This episode is part two of a four-part series covering EditCon and features editors from the hugely successful TV dramas The Handsmaid's Tale, Big Little Lies et Anne and is moderated by editors Roslyn Kalloo, CCE and Teresa De Luca, CCE.

Episode 002: TV Editing in the Golden Age

This episode features award winning drama editors Daria Ellerman, CCE, Lara Mazur, CCE and Nicole Ratcliffe, CCE as they discuss with moderator Karen Lam some of the impactful projects, they have worked on in their editing careers. 

Episode 002: TV Editing in the Golden Age
Episode 002: TV Editing in the Golden Age

Wendy Hallam Martin, CCE, talks about how she approached the riveting scenes of The Handmaid’s Tale.

Justin Lachance and Véronique Barbe will reveal the unconventional process used in the cutting of Big Little Lies.

D. Gillian Truster, CCE, shares her insights on the evolving editing techniques that inspired her work on the updated version of Anne.

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

Bryan Atkinson

the EditCon panelists

EditCon Series Produced by

Roslyn Kalloo

Hosted  by

Sarah Taylor

Design sonore du générique d'ouverture

Jane Tattersall

Preneur de son

Craig Scorgie

ADR Recording by

Andrea Rusch

Mixed by

James Bastable

Featuring Music by

Yung Koolade, Album House and Madrid

Sponsor Narration by

Paul Winestock

Photos by

Dino Harambasic

Commandité par

the DGC

fr_CAFR

stay connected

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

Aller au contenu