The Editblog

Now we all know that documentary films are comprised of much material. Sometimes even hours and hours of talking head type interviews. The traditional method of cutting these interviews down into something usable is to cut the audio into a coherent story that makes sense. There’s usually little regard for the picture as you want to smooth the audio out and cut it down to where it is usable for a particular point in the story you are trying to tell. Any series of thoughts and ideas might be composed of sound bites that were recorded at totally different times. Once you have your story told with the proper audio, the picture may look like you are revisiting Max Headroom in your edit style with jump cuts all over the place. Most of the time b-roll is used to cover these edits. B-roll can be pretty much any footage that you want. It doesn’t even have to make sense as we have all seen documentaries where the footage we are seeing didn’t make sense. Of course that is part of the charm of a documentary in that you can do totally crazy and abstract things with the edit to make something no one has ever seen before. Werner Herzog’s GRIZZLY MAN, took a different approach to this style in that there was very little b-roll used the to cover the interviews. Herzog and his editor found longer takes of his interview subjects and then left the jump cut intact between two adjoining sound bites. When I saw the first jump cut I was a bit startled. But as I continued to watch the film they were so well done and so few and far between that I didn’t mind them at all. They didn’t seem random but more like they sometimes too the sound bites with an eye in mind for the cut because even though they were jump cuts they felt very natural. The film itself was very light on b-roll so even though Herzog and his editor had many hours of footage to use they were very selective in what they showed us. It is great to see films like GRIZZLY MAN because they challenge the conventional techniques that we are all so used to when watching movies. And they even help to make people like me a better filmmaker.

Last night I watched Werner Herzog’s documentary Grizzly Man. It is a fascinating tale of Timothy Treadwell, a troubled man who spent 13 summers living unarmed with wild grizzly bears in Alaska. The film is comprised mainly of video diaries taken by Timothy. These diaries offer great but insight into the troubled mind of the documentary’s subject. To have this type of content is filmmaking gold. Werner uses Timothy’s footage to paint an affectionate portrait of someone many people would look at and call a wacko.

Documentaries are an interesting thing to edit in that they may be composed of many more hours of footage than a traditional narrative film. Herzog mentions in his narration that Timothy had shot someone one hundred + hours of video in his years living with the Bears. This poses a daunting task to any editor and is not for the faint of heart or the unorganized. I myself spent the better part of 2005 editing a similar type of story with some 100 hours of footage. It is always tough to decide what to cut out of any piece you are editing but unlike a narrative film where you may have multiple takes of the same thing, with documentary footage there can be so much good stuff which is all different and all interesting that it can be painful to cut out anything. This is where a good editor is essential to make a good documentary. Editors are often called the second director on a documentary because they hold such a strong hand in shaping and creating the final story.

Another great example of a documentary that was shaped from tons and tons of footage is Ondi Timoner’s Dig!. This doc tells the story of two rival rock bands (The Brain Jonestown Massacre vs. The Dandy Warhols) and their years of trying to achieve fame. It was shaped from years of footage shot by the director and her crews as well as footage from both bands. It is fascinating to watch and a great ethics lesson for anyone wanting to be a rock star. The DVD has a great commentary track by the director where she goes into some great detail on exactly how the film was put together. My one complaint with the Grizzly Man DVD was that there was no supplemental material other than a piece on the making of the film’s music. I can only imagine what kind of gold footage there is left in Timothy’s hours of unseen videotape. But then again that may be just the genius of this film… We see just enough of Timothy to get a sense of who he is but yet he is still clouded in mystery.

If you are an editor, producer, director, post supervisor or anyone else who has ever, does ever, or will ever have to be involved in the post production of a television, film or video project that has to go through some approval process… you will love this little mp3. Let the truth reign!

It’s 1.2 mbs, it’s an mp3 audio files and it’s the greatest thing I’ve ever heard.

Over the holiday I saw Narnia. I would write out the whole title of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe but it takes too long and everyone knows what I’m talking about. It was a thoroughly enjoyable piece of work and the runtime flew by. I’ve described it to some friends as Lord of the Rings Lite and I’m sure I’m not the only one. The talking animals always take a bit of getting used to (they have [for me anyway] since Babe) but once past that I was able to move along. It seems to me that Liam Neeson as the voice of the Lion (Jesus) Aslan was maybe not the best choice as he has played this role of father/mentor/teacher/leader before in the Star Wars prequels and Batman Begins. I would think that an unknown voice would have been best for such a central figure. I have joked that from now on when I think of Jesus I’ll see either Liam’s lion or Jim Caviezel. Probably depends on my mood.

I had wondered how the director of Narnia, Andrew Adamson, would handle this huge piece as his claim to fame has been mainly the Shrek franchise with some visual effects work thrown in. The film is so heavily CGI that it seemed like a choice that could work. Probably most problematic parts for me was the quieter live action only scenes when the kids were sitting around talking. There are 2 editors credited on the film and they both have somewhat limited resumes with a lot of animation or fx heavy work in their past. Some of those scenes felt a bit choppy with a “cut to who is talking when they are talking” kind of style. There was a good bit of tension built on certain scenes though and a few successful “jumps” and scares as well that were built well. I think the overall pacing came out well as there were good peaks and valleys that helped the longer run time fly on by. When the action got moving in the battles I was totally lost in them and didn’t once think about anything technical … which is a very good thing. There was once great cut when we were taken away mid-battle to a quieter moment. When we came back to the battle we were brought back with a single cut to a sword held high in the air as it was about to swoop down. That was fun! And I think over all …. Narnia was fun. I hope they make the rest of the series this fun as well, and if each sequel can build in quality as the Lord of the Rings series did, then by the end, we will have something special. Stay tuned…