I went into this shoot well aware that I was going to come out with plenty of imperfect shots – lighting issues, continuity issues, framing issues, pacing issues etc. – and I thought that I had kind of made peace with that knowledge. But it still frustrates the hell out me when I can’t achieve what I envision – what I know is possible for me to achieve. There’s something lacking in my production and post-production process that affects the quality of my work. And I don’t like that. I want the work to be far better than it is. I want to create a shot that I would love as a viewer. And that’s one side of what this project gave me the opportunity to do – to try out shots that resonate with my taste as a viewer.
This little film articulates exactly what I am feeling. Death to the gap, please.
THE GAP by Ira Glass from Daniel Sax on Vimeo.
This frustration is more potent now that I’m in the editing stage of the process. I’ve always found editing tough. I never know for sure which parts I should keep and which I should cut out. I never know which decision will make the final piece stronger. And I can’t seem to make what I envisioned work. I’m having a lot of trouble bringing it all together. Part of this may be in the many continuity issues. But it’s more so to do with the pacing within and among the shots. I don’t know how to make each scene cohesive, largely because of the pacing. My initial intention wasn’t to create three cohesive pieces – three polished scenes – but I would have liked to. I would have at least liked to have them flow properly. But I struggle making this happen. And I know that it’s not just my lacking editing skills that are causing this. My direction of the pacing (actor performances and camerawork) on the day is another factor. Some problems could also probably be traced back to my original shot lists. I think that my lacking editing skills are the factor that is letting me down most though. It’s very frustrating.
What’s funny is that the pacing in the Lubezki-inspired long-take tracking shot is much better than the edited scenes for the other two coverage styles. Perhaps because we shot the long-take last, so – by the time of shooting it – everyone was more familiar with the scene. Perhaps because certain parts of the scene needed to be slightly faster so that the camera would have motivation to move. Perhaps the pacing was better in this shot because of the added factor of the constantly moving / involved camera. I don’t know.
In my meeting with Robin this week, he suggested that I loosen my original intention of being loyal to the filmmakers’ distinctive styles, and perhaps try to adapt the scenes to work for themselves. Try to make something more cohesive with what I’ve got. I agree with him. I’ve got a lot of pieces, and they’re not connecting. There is a distinct disconnect among the shots. So far, I only know of one way to reduce this disconnect – J and L cuts. But that’s not enough.
During shooting, we actually missed some planned shots for the Aronofsky-Libatique scene – sound was recorded but the camera wasn’t rolling. These included a wide shot (for the end of the scene), and a couple of LA 45 degree MCUs of each character (for a specific dialogue section). The lacking final wide shot isn’t too much of a change, but I have to figure out a way to work in the missing dialogue. What I can do is put the dialogue underneath the ECUs (which deviates a bit from the Aronofsky-Libatique style). This just means that – instead of having a short ECU montage, which then cuts out to characters and dialogue, and then cuts back in to another short ECU montage – I’ll have to combine the two segments of ECUs to create a larger ECU montage (which again deviates from the Aronofsky-Libatique style). It also means that I have to think about how to go about layering sound for the montage. My original intention was to have eccentric, exaggerated sounds to accentuate the actions occurring in the ECUs. But I now have to take into account the dialogue. I’ll try balancing both and see how it goes.
Robin suggested to go with this idea of having the dialogue underneath the ECUs. It might help bring the piece together. He remarked that the dialogue shots are currently separated and spaced out by these silent ECU montages. But running the dialogue during the ECU montages could solve (or at least improve) this disconnect. It’ll be interesting to see how it goes. Although it deviates from the Aronofsky-Libatique style (which I similarly adore), I’ve always loved the idea of having dialogue running underneath ECUs. During pre-production I had to actively stop myself from veering too far from the Aronofsky-Libatique style and making a shot list entirely of ECUs (with the dialogue occurring underneath these shots). So, I kind of get to revisit that interest in my plan to salvage this scene.