Post-Production

This question was one of the most vitriolic debates our local film group back in the "listserv" days of post 2000 ever had. The basic underlying question has to to the fundamental belief of is there is such thing as "objectivity" in film (let's forget all other media for now). There is a group that believes such objective filmmaking is at least theoretically possible. There is another group (which includes me) that believes the act of pointing a camera, setting an exposure, framing a shot, deciding when to start and stop a camera is inherently a subjective act that can NEVER be accomplished objectively. Add the process of selecting a take and editing it to another and it's the furthest possible thing from objectivity by any reasonable definition of that word. However, despite, this the other camp will die fighting for the belief that some films are "more objective" or "less subjective" than others. They don't understand my camp beliefs all filmmaking to be 100% subjective by the fundamental process of filming and editing. The intent or goal or moral values of the filmmaker are irrelevant. I do believe looking at even the most famous documentary films, even those that accomplished much good, there would fail every true test of objectivity. But there is also an implication in this that subjectivity is somehow less than objectivity. I would argue that is is precisely because film and cinema offer potentially the most powerful emotional medium that we have and thus the one that can most effect change. Objectivity has it's use in science and perhaps legal or other arenas. To return to your question, all filming and editing is manipulation by it's very nature. It's a contract that should be consensual. The only problem I have is those that argue that their film is actual objective. It's not, it can never be. Like all consent, as long as both audience and filmmaker are fully aware and committed to the this contract of subjectivity, all is good.

I think genre plays a hand. I totally agree with Stephen - it's the nature of editing. But when actors, directors and editors aim for a scene, using the footage in the most potent way is the social contract. When editing a news interview or a doc on a subject that deserves reverence or respect, then keeping things as close to authentic should be the goal. Back in my reality TV days many years ago... all the footage was in play to deliver entertainment to the audience and the participants signed on for that - and I always felt the audience did too. So like may things, not sure its absolute. The moral compass of the project plays a hand.

There’s a reason many best picture winners also win best editing. Editing makes the movie.

100% agreed Mike Boas How are you, my friend? Long time!

I haven’t gone anywhere… still posting regularly here, just maybe in different lounges?

Editing IS the movie. Otherwise you just have "footage".

Agree - all of prep and production is really to get the legos into the edit room where a film really coms together (or gets fixed, or re-shot). Editing is the key.

Thanks for the share, Suzanne Bronson - have an awesome meetup!

Very informative! Thank you!

This is so smart and right on. Thanks for the share, Ashley Renee Smith!

is there a link?

The AMA is live now! Here's the link: https://www.stage32.com/lounge/post_production/Ask-Me-Anything-AMA-Wedne...

Thank you, Stephen V. Stone - it's an amazing show and agree that everyone interested in filmmaking and the technical aspects of making your film as amazing as possible should watch it!

It’s a great show and has really informative content. Definitely will re-watch!

This is awesome! My husband used to love watching this show!

I look forward to watching more of these episodes. Thanks for sharing.

Glad to see someone posted this. I rewatch this periodically because it's just so damn good. Everybody on this site should watch it.

That's a huge question and probably worth a hour-long panel discussion to do it justice. But I do think it falls under the umbrella of "know your tools". The tools are changing, rapidly now, and storytellers benefit from understanding how tools can change and potentially improve or degrade the process. However, the actual process of developing, crafting and telling a story has not fundamentally changed, so the foundations of story are still as valid today as they were 1000 years ago.

Depends on whether you are speaking about independent creators or studio/studio sub creators. For the latter (studios) it allows corporate bean counters and incapable producers to cut costs and pressure people to get things done faster and cheaper - from writers through to all post people. This has already led and will continue to lead to more absolute reliance on reboot, rehash, repeat and standard, common techniques and off-the-shelf effects which become cliche within minutes in a global industry, leading (as it has) to a general rise in big budget garbage. For the former (independents), it permits a much wider potential for actual, original creative expression, original voice and open-minded approach to everything including the story, pacing, effects, etc. BUT despite the so-called "advancements" in the process, which are enormous, each function still requires a talent for that function and this, most of us do not have in abundance. Most of us are pretty good at one or two of these processes, only passable at most, and hideously bad at some. The learning curve is steep. So, again, while there has been and will continue to be a general rise in original approaches, on an industry wide scale, "production value" will be spotty. So this sounds like rather bad news on both sides. However, audience expectations have radically changed as well. While treated to mega-budget fare which is often devoid of dramatic value, the audience also have and are growing up with the really poor, and still poor, experience of social media video. This is leading to a much, much wider tolerance for so-called "low production value" and a growing sensitivity to the original in terms of story. The value of "star" or "name" talent is dropping rapidly and seems to already have become irrelevant to some of us. Now all that is just off the cuff, but we talk about these things constantly among ourselves at the Independent Producers Guild, because our mandate is to address these exact issues,

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg Your insights shed light on the complex dynamics within the film industry, differentiating between independent creators and studio-driven productions. The impact of corporate influences on studios, as you rightly point out, often results in cost-cutting measures that can compromise the creative process, leading to an overreliance on familiar formulas and clichés.

For independent creators, the flexibility to explore original and innovative ideas is a distinct advantage. However, as you emphasize, this comes with its own challenges, as each aspect of the filmmaking process requires a specific talent, and the learning curve can be steep. The trade-off between creative freedom and the need for specialized skills highlights the intricate balance independent creators must navigate.

The changing landscape of audience expectations, influenced by both mega-budget productions and the proliferation of content on social media, is a fascinating aspect you touch upon. The shifting emphasis from "production value" to the originality of the story indicates a significant evolution in audience preferences. The decreasing relevance of star or name talent adds another layer to this transformation, emphasizing a growing appreciation for substance over celebrity.

Your candid reflection on these industry challenges and discussions within the Independent Producers Guild highlights a commitment to addressing these issues head-on.

It's evident that the pursuit of creative excellence remains at the forefront, even amid the complexities and evolving nature of the film industry. These conversations are essential for fostering an environment that nurtures both artistic expression and industry sustainability.

I am here to foster discussion even if it may be a long response. Thanks for Sharing.

Mario Leone Thank you! On changing audience, IMO it is a fundamental mistake to assume or assert, like the industry does, that audience has EVER cared much about name actors or production values, generally speaking. Consider that this attitude came about in the brick/mortar days of theatre and broadcast/cable television. In that situation, you are in a time-slot environment. Audience had to attend at a specific time or not see a show, and if they wanted to see two shows at the same time, they had to decide one or other other. Add to that the evolution of MPA market control, which depends upon larger budgets and massive marketing budgets to ensure that they squeeze lower budget fare out of screens. In such a case, a "name" actor is important because the studio says so and spends money to make it so. Same for the budget. Name and advertised budget are also short-hand for audiences to associate a good or bad flick in their mind. Today we are in an on-demand environment. We don't have to choose to see one and ignore the other, and we don't have to go out of our way to see a movie at a specific time. IMO the audience's true preferences, which admittedly are changing, simply don't support the idea that they care overmuch about either name talent of budget. In fact, quite the opposite. This has always been evident in certain genres, such as horror. Now it is becoming evidence across genres.

Your view highlights the changing dynamics in the entertainment industry, emphasizing the shift from traditional brick-and-mortar models to an on-demand environment.

In this digital age, audiences indeed have more flexibility and options, challenging the traditional importance placed on name actors and high production budgets.

The emphasis on studio-driven marketing and larger budgets might not hold the same sway in an era where audiences have the freedom to choose content based on their preferences. Another words taste are becoming more diverse.

The rise of on-demand platforms has allowed a broad range of content to find its audience, breaking away from the constraints of time frames and location-based viewing.

Genres like horror, traditionally less dependent on A-list actors or massive budgets, showcase how audience preferences can diverge from the industry’s historical emphasis on star power and production values. Platforms like Tubi are growing due to those same diverse tastes.

However, it’s essential to acknowledge that audience preferences can vary, and the industry is navigating a period of transition.

While the on-demand model provides more freedom, there’s still a coexistence of traditional and emerging trends.

As the landscape continues to evolve, understanding the nuanced interplay between audience preferences, content quality, and accessibility remains crucial for industry professionals. Interesting times we live in. Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg

Beautiful work Kanako. Thanks for sharing. Really liked Abandoned House!

Mike Hall thank you so much!!!

Ashley Renee Smith thank you will do

There are so many great people here in the composing field. Great to have you aboard.

Debbie Elicksen thanks nice to meet you. What's going on?

Brian Williams Welcome aboard! Some of us Film Folks do music videos too. A great crossover, not to mention that if you sound engineer you can score films, and furthermore perhaps even work on the set with recordings. It all crosses over.

Brian Williams do you have a particular genre that you love the most?

Nice find, Maurice Vaughan I see many similarities between writing the first draft of a screenplay and the first edit in post: get it down. Don't expect it to be Oscar worthy on the first attempt.

I also liked Kent's tip for getting through an edit quickly by working problems from big to small.

And finally, perhaps my fav bit, "The mouse is lava!" Same for software programming. The mouse is a time killer. I cringe when I watch some reach for the mouse when a quick one-two keyboard combo completes the task instantly.

Thx for sharing!

You're welcome, Ty Strange. I try to do the same thing ("edit quickly by working problems from big to small"). The keyboard shortcuts save me A LOT of time, especially when I'm switching between windows and copying/pasting.

Maurice Vaughan I love how he starts this out to grab our attention, and show his editing chops at the same time.

Yeah, Kent does a great job grabbing our attention in his videos, Debbie Elicksen. He knows his stuff, and he explains things really clearly. His videos are some of my favorites. He has editing videos, screenwriting videos, filmmaking videos, and more.

I work as a professional editor and post-pro as well. His tips are fine for very short-form, client-work with relative simple setups. I do similar things for those types of jobs. And keyboard shortcuts are always great to use as is some type of hardware controller device (shuttle wheel so much better than JKL keys for me). But beyond the organized project method, these techniques will create more problems than they solve on a feature, complex project or collaborative projects. I've posted some stuff from Eddie Hamilton that is a much better guide on narrative, bigger, collaborative project workflows.

This is a GREAT read. The film is conceptual on many levels and has remarkable cuts and scene transitions. Such a brilliant move involving his editor from the very beginning. Very cool.

I love that. Bringing them in early is a great way for the editor to think ahead while saving time and $ at the end.