Categories
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.

Listen Here

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. I 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.

Subscribe Wherever You Get Your Podcasts

What do you want to hear on The Editor's Cut?

Please send along any topics you would like us to cover or editors you would love to hear from:

Credits

A special thanks

Jane MacRae

Stephen Philipson

Heather Taylor

Hosted, Produced and Edited by

Sarah Taylor

Mixed and Mastered by

Tony Bao

Main Title Sound Design by

Jane Tattersall

ADR Recording by

Andrea Rusch

Original Music by

Chad Blain

Soundstripe

Sponsor Narration by

Paul Winestock

Categories
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, and The Expanse.

Listen Here

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.

Subscribe Wherever You Get Your Podcasts

What do you want to hear on The Editors Cut?

Please send along any topics you would like us to cover or editors you would love to hear from:

Credits

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

Jane MacRae

Maureen Grant

the CCE board

Hosted, Produced and Edited by

Sarah Taylor

Mixed and Mastered by

Tony Bao

Original Music by

Chad Blain

Categories
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 and BaronessVon Sketch Show and Jonathan Eagan from WorkinMoms and Carter will explore what makes cutting comedy unique and particularly challenging.

Listen Here

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

Subscribe Wherever You Get Your Podcasts

What do you want to hear on The Editors Cut?

Please send along any topics you would like us to cover or editors you would love to hear from:

Credits

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

Hosted, Produced and Edited by

Sarah Taylor

Mixed and Mastered by

Tony Bao

Original Music by

Chad Blain

Categories
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, and Genesis will share how they did it. In this panel discussion Mathieu Bouchard-Malo, Lara Johnston and Sabrina Pitre talk about their process, career trajectories and what lies ahead.

This panel was moderated by Justin Lachance, CCE.

Listen Here

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

Subscribe Wherever You Get Your Podcasts

What do you want to hear on The Editors Cut?

Please send along any topics you would like us to cover or editors you would love to hear from:

Credits

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

Jane MacRae

Maureen Grant

IATSE 891

the CCE board

Hosted, Produced and Edited by

Sarah Taylor

Mixed and Mastered by

Tony Bao

Original Music by

Chad Blain

Categories
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.

Listen Here

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.

Subscribe Wherever You Get Your Podcasts

What do you want to hear on The Editors Cut?

Please send along any topics you would like us to cover or editors you would love to hear from:

Credits

A special thanks goes to

Jane MacRae

Maureen Grant

Trevor Mirosh

Hosted, Produced and Edited by

Sarah Taylor

Mixed and Mastered by

Tony Bao

Original Music by

Chad Blain

Categories
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.

Listen Here

Subscribe Wherever You Get Your Podcasts

What do you want to hear on The Editors Cut?

Please send along any topics you would like us to cover or editors you would love to hear from:

Credits

A special thanks goes to

Bryan Atkinson

the EditCon panelists

EditCon Series Produced by

Roslyn Kalloo

Hosted by

Sarah Taylor

Main Title Sound Design by

Jane Tattersall

Sound Recording by

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

Sponsored by

the DGC

Categories
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 and 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.

Listen Here

Subscribe Wherever You Get Your Podcasts

What do you want to hear on The Editors Cut?

Please send along any topics you would like us to cover or editors you would love to hear from:

Credits

A special thanks goes to

Bryan Atkinson

the EditCon panelists

EditCon Series Produced by

Roslyn Kalloo

Hosted  by

Sarah Taylor

Main Title Sound Design by

Jane Tattersall

Sound Recording by

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

Sponsored by

the DGC

Categories
The Editors Cut

Episode 003: Behind the cut with Richard Comeau, CCE

Episode 003: Behind the cut with Richard Comeau, CCE


Episode 003: Behind the cut with Richard Comeau, CCE

This is episode three of a four-part series covering EditCon and spotlights Richard Comeau, CCE, the multiple award-winning editor of Maelstrom, Polytechnique, Rebelle, 2 Lovers and a Bear and Eye on Juliet.

Richard will talk to director Jim Allodi about the importance of the editor’s input at script stage and about the strategies he uses when he realizes there is a better way to tell the story.

Episode 003: Behind the cut with Richard Comeau, CCE, Editcon 2018
Episode 003: Behind the cut with Richard Comeau, CCE, Editcon 2018

Listen Here

Subscribe Wherever You Get Your Podcasts

What do you want to hear on The Editors Cut?

Please send along any topics you would like us to cover or editors you would love to hear from:

Credits

A special thanks goes to

Bryan Atkinson

the EditCon panelists

EditCon Series Produced by

Roslyn Kalloo

Hosted by

Sarah Taylor

Sound Design by

Jane Tattersall

Sound Recording by

Craig Scorgie

ADR Recording by

Andrea Rusch

Mixed by

Tony Bao

Featuring Music by

Yung Koolade, Album House and Madrid

Sponsor Narration by

Paul Winestock

Photos by

Dino Harambasic

Sponsored by

the DGC

Categories
The Editors Cut

Episode 004: Crossing the 49th

Episode 004: Crossing the 49th

Episode 004: Crossing the 49th

This is the final episode of the EditCon series, and it covers the ups and downs of working in LA.

att Hannam, CCE, Stephen Philipson, CCE and Andrew Coutts, CCE share their experiences with Chris Mutton

Matt Hannam, CCE, Stephen Philipson, CCE and Andrew Coutts, CCE share their experiences with Chris Mutton about cutting shows like Star Trek: Discovery, American Gods and The OA as well as indie feature films in the United States.

Editor Andrew Coutts, CCE

Andrew Coutts, CCE

Andrew Coutts tells us about some of the differences he found working on the LA based series Star Trek: Discovery.

Editor Matt Hannam, CCE

Matt Hannam, CCE

Matt Hannam talks about the difficulties of getting into the American unions and his work on Swiss Army Man.

Editor Stephen Philipson, CCE

Stephen Philipson, CCE

Stephen Philipson explains why he chose to make the big move to a highly competitive environment.

Listen Here

DGC logo sponsor event

Subscribe Wherever You Get Your Podcasts

What do you want to hear on The Editors Cut?

Please send along any topics you would like us to cover or editors you would love to hear from:

Credits

A special thanks goes to

Bryan Atkinson

the EditCon panelists

EditCon Series Produced by

Roslyn Kalloo

Hosted by

Sarah Taylor

Main Title Sound Design by

Jane Tattersall

Sound Recording by

Craig Scorgie

ADR Recording by

Andrea Rusch

Mixed by

James Bastable

Featuring Music by

Yung Koolade, Album House and Madrid

Original Music by

Chad Blain

Sponsor Narration by

Paul Winestock

Photos by

Dino Harambasic and Victoria McGlynn

Sponsored by

the DGC

Categories
The Editors Cut

Episode 005: Q&A with Sabrina Pitre

Episode 005: Q&A with Sabrina Nitre

Episode 005: Q&A with Sabrina Nitre

This episode is the Q&A between Sabrina Pitre and moderator Michael J. Bateman, CCE that took place in Vancouver on January 24, 2018.

Michael and Sabrina discuss her work on the Disney series Mech X4, Sisters and Brothers and Freaks.

Listen Here

Subscribe Wherever You Get Your Podcasts

What do you want to hear on The Editors Cut?

Please send along any topics you would like us to cover or editors you would love to hear from:

Credits

A special thanks goes to

Sabrina Pitre

Michael J. Bateman, CCE

Nicole Ratcliffe

Kelly Morris

Hosted and Produced by

Sarah Taylor

Sound Recording by

Kody Davidson and Gary Lam

Main Title Sound Design by

Jane Tattersall

ADR Recording by

Andrea Rusch

Mixed by

Tony Bao

Featuring Music by

Yung Koolade CCE

Narration by

Paul Winestock

en_CAEN

stay connected

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

Skip to content