clara bow
05-31-2005, 12:35 AM
Greetings! I had an opportunity yesterday to view a rough cut of a very independent, low budget film that my husband wrote. He partnered with a director who’s also a longtime friend, and this is their first produced project together. I’m the li’l wife who gets to tag along, so I thought I would share some observations about the experience for those people that, like me, have not yet had any first hand experience in making a movie. This is probably old hat to the pros out there.
The setting: A dark and dingy editing facility off of Magnolia Blvd. in Burbank. A wall of film canisters met my eyes upon entering, and it took a minute to adjust to the utter blackness of the hallway. Barely a sliver of gray light from the editing room eked out to guide me as I carefully threaded my way amongst various items strewn across the floor.
Everyone enters the editing room. My husband, Eric, met the editor for the first time. I could tell how professional and knowledgeable she was from the first handshake. Gathered were three of the producers, the location manager (the boyfriend of one of the producers and a longtime supporter, hence his presence), the director, his mother (she was on the set a lot, too), and Eric and I. The room’s small size made things really cozy (read=rubbing knees and elbows) as we settled into chairs to watch the film unfold on a 25 inch TV screen.
The lights were extinguished and the film rolled. At this point, there were no credits or special effects. This was the second rough cut of supernatural psychological thriller. The director had used some unexpectedly experimental shots that were interesting but also lent the film an uneven tone at times. Rudimentary temp music accompanied some of the scenes. Most of it worked, some of it didn’t. Additional ADR needed to be done, and so the director had supplied his own pipes for some of the voice overs. One or two of the special effects were outright laughable, but I kept quiet because I knew they would be replaced by the real thing. But it wasn’t something you’d want to show an investor who may or may not have the ability to visualize what the film *could* be. One of the producers watching was also a major investor, so the unfinished appearance may or may not become an issue.
The fabulous part for me was hearing my husband’s dialogue. He had written some really funny & also poignant stuff (I’m biased, I know!), but the amazing part was seeing how it interfaced with the actors and the director’s vision. I thought that it came across really well on the page; on screen it was even better. Another thrill for me, albeit a goofy one, is that Eric had used a name I had supplied him when he needed one for a character (who’s a doctor). Imagine my surprise when I see the name painted on the door of the character’s office! The funny part is that I had borrowed the last name of my clinical supervisor from work. So of course it’s now included in the cast list on IMDB. I hadn’t realized the impact of something so seemingly minor until watching the cut. I had also inadvertently influenced the inclusion of some other dialogue (i.e., a story that one character tells another came—altered for the film, of course—from a book I was reading at the time and I had just happened to share it with my husband. He later surprised me by including it in the script. So we shared A Very Special Moment when the scene appeared!).
Overall, I thought that the story came together despite the low budget. Of course, right now there are some pretty glaring flaws that need to be worked out and the film needs quite a bit of polishing. Upon seeing the rough cut, I really got a sense of how important it is to really evaluate the scenes in a film and how they affect the flow. The director had originally wanted to inter-cut scenes from a documentary (that one of the characters watches) throughout the film (about four or five times in all). When the film was assembled, Eric and I were told, the documentary pieces totally slowed down and interrupted the mood the director was simultaneously trying to build. So he and the editor made a decision to make a montage sequence from the documentary and place it at the end. IMHO, I thought it worked better. Why none of us involved saw this from the beginning is a good question. It was an excellent learning experience nonetheless. I think it forced the director to be more creative with what he had. He’s also now forced to be really creative since some of the scenes that were shot ended up being useless for one reason or another (one time, the film somehow got all sliced up; another time there were sound issues, or subpar acting, etc., etc.). So now he is stuck with the footage he has. He hopes that the music, the special effects (probably 10-20 in all), and some extra still shots will help to add the elements that he could not include via the use of the other scenes.
After the screening we all gathered in the parking garage which was immediately adjacent to the building and did a sort of round table of feedback for the director and editor. I knew in general that an editor is a very important player in the process, but I learned even more watching this one field questions and feedback. I was impressed that the project had landed someone who asked intelligent questions and knew her stuff.
It was very interesting watching the interactions of everyone as they voiced what they thought worked and didn’t work. I mostly listened or just nodded my head whenever I agreed with something. Since I was the only one there who knew the least about the version of the script that was actually shot, I gave input regarding the story’s effectiveness. But as Eric pointed out later, in normal studio funded pictures, I wouldn’t have been there at all. This is something that probably only happens with true indie films, people the like mother of the director and the writer’s wife giving feedback!
I learned how important it is for people involved to clearly define their roles (e.g., financial producer vs. creative producer) from the beginning, and how much strategy and diplomacy the director needs to use during post-production. He really is walking a fine line between balancing his own vision and the expectations of the financial investors (e.g., niche/art house vs. mainstream fare). I got the sense that two of the producers were trying to reconcile the original script—and their original expectations—with what ended up on the screen. Budget limitations resulted in chunks of the screenplay being dumped. The director had been overconfident about his ability to shoot everything with the money he had. Eric had anticipated this, but being more of a writer for hire he didn’t have the influence to change the director’s mind. I mention this because I think it speaks to the importance of writing for a realistic budget. If you get lucky and sell that spec script for six figures, fantastic and more power to you, but for all the other writers trying to break in to the industry, this lesson illustrates the benefit of writing lean and expecting to lose your babies. I mean, I kind of knew this stuff from immersing myself in DVD extras and other film media, but seeing it first hand lent it a totally different feel. I really got a sense of the stakes as the producers had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into the film—one of them using his own money (he had mortgaged his house! But he also had a lot of distribution contacts and expressed a lot of confidence about its market potential). So there’s a lot of pressure for the director to deliver.
The editor told the director she believes the film has a good chance of being accepted at Sundance. I told him that in my opinion the festival folks would be his toughest audience. We’ll see what happens.
So anyway, that’s our tale. Hope it was informative!
The setting: A dark and dingy editing facility off of Magnolia Blvd. in Burbank. A wall of film canisters met my eyes upon entering, and it took a minute to adjust to the utter blackness of the hallway. Barely a sliver of gray light from the editing room eked out to guide me as I carefully threaded my way amongst various items strewn across the floor.
Everyone enters the editing room. My husband, Eric, met the editor for the first time. I could tell how professional and knowledgeable she was from the first handshake. Gathered were three of the producers, the location manager (the boyfriend of one of the producers and a longtime supporter, hence his presence), the director, his mother (she was on the set a lot, too), and Eric and I. The room’s small size made things really cozy (read=rubbing knees and elbows) as we settled into chairs to watch the film unfold on a 25 inch TV screen.
The lights were extinguished and the film rolled. At this point, there were no credits or special effects. This was the second rough cut of supernatural psychological thriller. The director had used some unexpectedly experimental shots that were interesting but also lent the film an uneven tone at times. Rudimentary temp music accompanied some of the scenes. Most of it worked, some of it didn’t. Additional ADR needed to be done, and so the director had supplied his own pipes for some of the voice overs. One or two of the special effects were outright laughable, but I kept quiet because I knew they would be replaced by the real thing. But it wasn’t something you’d want to show an investor who may or may not have the ability to visualize what the film *could* be. One of the producers watching was also a major investor, so the unfinished appearance may or may not become an issue.
The fabulous part for me was hearing my husband’s dialogue. He had written some really funny & also poignant stuff (I’m biased, I know!), but the amazing part was seeing how it interfaced with the actors and the director’s vision. I thought that it came across really well on the page; on screen it was even better. Another thrill for me, albeit a goofy one, is that Eric had used a name I had supplied him when he needed one for a character (who’s a doctor). Imagine my surprise when I see the name painted on the door of the character’s office! The funny part is that I had borrowed the last name of my clinical supervisor from work. So of course it’s now included in the cast list on IMDB. I hadn’t realized the impact of something so seemingly minor until watching the cut. I had also inadvertently influenced the inclusion of some other dialogue (i.e., a story that one character tells another came—altered for the film, of course—from a book I was reading at the time and I had just happened to share it with my husband. He later surprised me by including it in the script. So we shared A Very Special Moment when the scene appeared!).
Overall, I thought that the story came together despite the low budget. Of course, right now there are some pretty glaring flaws that need to be worked out and the film needs quite a bit of polishing. Upon seeing the rough cut, I really got a sense of how important it is to really evaluate the scenes in a film and how they affect the flow. The director had originally wanted to inter-cut scenes from a documentary (that one of the characters watches) throughout the film (about four or five times in all). When the film was assembled, Eric and I were told, the documentary pieces totally slowed down and interrupted the mood the director was simultaneously trying to build. So he and the editor made a decision to make a montage sequence from the documentary and place it at the end. IMHO, I thought it worked better. Why none of us involved saw this from the beginning is a good question. It was an excellent learning experience nonetheless. I think it forced the director to be more creative with what he had. He’s also now forced to be really creative since some of the scenes that were shot ended up being useless for one reason or another (one time, the film somehow got all sliced up; another time there were sound issues, or subpar acting, etc., etc.). So now he is stuck with the footage he has. He hopes that the music, the special effects (probably 10-20 in all), and some extra still shots will help to add the elements that he could not include via the use of the other scenes.
After the screening we all gathered in the parking garage which was immediately adjacent to the building and did a sort of round table of feedback for the director and editor. I knew in general that an editor is a very important player in the process, but I learned even more watching this one field questions and feedback. I was impressed that the project had landed someone who asked intelligent questions and knew her stuff.
It was very interesting watching the interactions of everyone as they voiced what they thought worked and didn’t work. I mostly listened or just nodded my head whenever I agreed with something. Since I was the only one there who knew the least about the version of the script that was actually shot, I gave input regarding the story’s effectiveness. But as Eric pointed out later, in normal studio funded pictures, I wouldn’t have been there at all. This is something that probably only happens with true indie films, people the like mother of the director and the writer’s wife giving feedback!
I learned how important it is for people involved to clearly define their roles (e.g., financial producer vs. creative producer) from the beginning, and how much strategy and diplomacy the director needs to use during post-production. He really is walking a fine line between balancing his own vision and the expectations of the financial investors (e.g., niche/art house vs. mainstream fare). I got the sense that two of the producers were trying to reconcile the original script—and their original expectations—with what ended up on the screen. Budget limitations resulted in chunks of the screenplay being dumped. The director had been overconfident about his ability to shoot everything with the money he had. Eric had anticipated this, but being more of a writer for hire he didn’t have the influence to change the director’s mind. I mention this because I think it speaks to the importance of writing for a realistic budget. If you get lucky and sell that spec script for six figures, fantastic and more power to you, but for all the other writers trying to break in to the industry, this lesson illustrates the benefit of writing lean and expecting to lose your babies. I mean, I kind of knew this stuff from immersing myself in DVD extras and other film media, but seeing it first hand lent it a totally different feel. I really got a sense of the stakes as the producers had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into the film—one of them using his own money (he had mortgaged his house! But he also had a lot of distribution contacts and expressed a lot of confidence about its market potential). So there’s a lot of pressure for the director to deliver.
The editor told the director she believes the film has a good chance of being accepted at Sundance. I told him that in my opinion the festival folks would be his toughest audience. We’ll see what happens.
So anyway, that’s our tale. Hope it was informative!