Focus – Light Iron videos

[Herb Sevush]

Aindreas –

Love the split screens, liked the wipes as well. Have always been a big fan of split screen technique, the master of which in the feature film domain was the great Robert Aldrich – who made a political thriller in the 70’s called “Twilight’s Last Gleaming” (unfortunately hard to find on DVD) which was the ultimate use of the technique.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Walter Soyka]

[Herb Sevush] “the directors of Focus, the plurality of which is more historically unusual than their intimate involvement with the editing”

I’d love to discuss this point more. How does the auteur theory espoused above fit in with two directors collaborating on the film?

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]

[Herb Sevush]

[Walter Soyka] “How does the auteur theory espoused above fit in with two directors collaborating on the film?”

I wasn’t being particularly Auteurish above, although I have definite opinions along those line, I was being both historically accurate and practical. Historically people like Keaton, Chaplin & Griffith controlled every aspect of their films – the idea that the Hollywood studio system of isolated directors, writers and editors was always the case is simply not true.

As to the “Auteur Theory” – properly understood it never said that the director is always the “auteur” of every film, it said that certain directors, due to the immensity of their talent, should be considered as the “authors” of their films even when working inside the assembly line Hollywood production system.

These directors – majors like Ford, Hitchcock, Wells, Hawks, Peckinpah, Capra, Wilder, lesser appreciated like Aldrich, Fuller, Mann – had a singleness of vision that was so strong that no matter what material they were handed by the studio, the final work could best be understood within the context of that director’s career.

Ever since the French new wave brought forth the “auteur theory” for understanding American cinema, it has been distorted into the “cult of the director” with every novice getting a possessory credit.

However great movies were often made in the studio system without such strong directorial personalities. Casablanca was directed by Michael Curtiz, a very fine studio director who also made the Errol Flynn “Robin Hood” – but was he the “auteur” of Casablanca? I don’t think you’ll find many who would say so.

So in answer to your question, multiple directors as a team can be auteurs, witness the Coen Brothers, the same way music writing teams can be the authors of their songs, think Gilbert and Sullivan. It’s become more common in recent years but the Director’s Guild still fights against giving multiple directors credits on the same film and in the highly egoistical world of film directors, it is still unusual.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Bill Davis]

[Dennis Radeke] “Bill,

I tip my hat to you – I have more posts that I don’t ‘publish’ in response to you than all others. This would be one of them… 😉

Cheers,
Dennis”

Dennis,

I understand totally. When you work for a corporate entity, you at least partially speak for them and if I was in your shoes, I’d do precisely the same thing. Discretion is always the better part of valor in a large corporate setting.

But I’m not in that setting. So I don’t have the same restraints. And thankfully, there are plenty of folks here with opinions that I’m sure mirror yours that are able to defend Adobe’s honor vigorously the same way I’ve been able to stick up for the Apple vision for the past 4 years. God knows I’ve had plenty of folks here toss my writings back in my face, and then I get the chance to defend my positions.This is how quality learning takes place. Period.

With Aindreas, all I was doing was reflecting on the FACT that when he posted time after time after time about how X simply could not (and never would) become a NLE usable for anyone outside of the YouTube set – he was wrong. And he was. Even a cursory reading of his posts from 2011, 12 and 13 would reveal that as FACT. The landscape today is NOT as he envisioned it. In fact, it’s pretty clearly closer to my wildest dreams.

And so it goes.

Lastly, in sympathy with your primary point that you don’t get to post as freely as you like, you may have noticed that my contribution level to the CC or NOT forum is barely above non-existant. I’ve probably posted less than 6 total posts over there in the last year. That’s by design. I figured that since I’m not invested in Premier (outside my Photo subscription) that I didn’t have standing to bloviate there. But here, I honestly feel I do. Because agree with me or not, at least I’ve gone toe to toe with my detractors. And in doing that, perhaps people have had a chance to see both sides of the Or Not argument.

Hope you guys have a great NAB.

Peace.

Hey, BTW where are all the Adobe banner ads on the forum this week? They’ve all disappeared at least from my page loads. Getting ready for a big NAB splash?

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[Bill Davis]

[Tim Wilson] “But there is no criticism of X either stated or implied in challenging the author’s claim about X being first.

“Previous NLEs were timeline-based systems that sat on-top of a database.”
“

Uh, I believe the quote from the seminar was more like:

Previous NLEs were timelines that sat on top of a database… While FCP X is a database that sits on top of a timeline.

When I heard that line I agreed fully. It was the ELEVATION of the database (that ALL NLEs have to have to manage assets) toward parity if not downright superiority with the Timeline, that drives much of FCP X’s editing efficiency.

The X editor can EDIT in the database whether or not a timeline currently exists.. Setting In and out points, making coloring decisions, sound manipulations and a host of other frame accurate actual editing decisions which then carry over directly into the timeline when the editor eventually needs to employ one.

And that makes the quote both accurate and quite important, in my opinion.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Wow. Just, wow. Haven’t seen a derp-fest like this in some time. Thanks, Aindreas!

So many calm and reasonable replies — makes me want to jump right into the deep end (don’t panic, Tim).

Oliver, your question isn’t insulting. The premise and presumptions of the initial rant, however, are.
Been watching the videos. A couple of things stand out:

1. Michael Cioni is a really smart guy. With a really smart company. It’s not all that hard to look past a certain amount of marketing-speak to get to the important points. Most of the reflexive pearl clutchers on this forum would do well to pay attention to what he has to say.

2. Directors are…well, directors. They live in a different world from you and me. Outside of their particular skill sets, most of what they say (and especially HOW they say it) is not to be taken very seriously. Especially by people who don’t know them or their work or their working styles.

3. Bravo, Herb. Totally nailed the whole “auteur” thing. A widely misunderstood and misapplied concept – especially by directors and insecure editors. The real auteurs usually don’t present themselves as such. Still, it’s not wrong or uncommon to see directors who edit. Or directors who shoot.

4. Name one editor “auteur.” . . . . . . . . . . . . Didn’t think so. Films and television are group efforts. Always have been. Some film directors maintain a lot of control through post production. Others walk away. Only rarely does a TV director get anything more than a first cut (and often not even that). Instead, the producer runs the show. Editors are mostly hired hands. Their skills and contributions are important but mostly devalued. Only in motion pictures does an editor sometimes get to be a true collaborator. But it’s not his movie. Ever. Unfortunately, the lower on the ladder the director, the more he usually blathers on about the extent to which he guides and brings his special magic to the entire process of filmmaking. Whatever.

5. DITs talk about DIT stuff. AEs talk about AE stuff. Sound talks about mixing. Directors talk about directing and everything else. That’s why they’re at event like this. How could anyone think a DIT talking enthusiastically and broadly about DIT workflow in general and a specific workflow in particular is being aggressive? It’s his job. It’s what I want to know about. What was different or special or unique or groundbreaking about this movie? Go ahead and exaggerate a little. I’m a big boy – I can figure it out. Just tell me something new and exciting. That’s the point of the presentation.

6. It’s been said before, but some apparently didn’t get the memo: this is not about editing a feature on FCPX. It’s about -finishing and delivering- a feature on FCPX. It’s about demonstrating that FCPX can and does play nice with all the other departments. “They” said it wasn’t possible. “They” were wrong. Move on. If you prefer Avid or Lightworks, great. They like you, too. Move on. Nothing to see here.

Unrelated to the videos, but regarding old tropes being trotted out yet again:

1. No widespread adoption of X in Hollywood. True. But slowly gaining ground. Yes, there’s some wishful thinking going on here, but why so intent on pushing the NOBODY DOES OR WILL USE IT! meme? Why do you care so much? It’ll get there without you. You’re safe. Your job is safe. Take a deep breath.

2. Let’s be clear about something. Mark Raudonis and some others jumped to Avid for very good, very specific workflow reasons that couldn’t be addressed by X. Smart moves by smart people. On the other hand, NBC uses Avid out of inertia. So does CBS. ABC initially jumped to FCP because of cost and butthurt over Avid’s lousy attitude. Now they use Premiere out of a combination of fear and inertia. I know these people. I work with them. It’s not really about X’s professionalism or suitability. Seriously, let it go.

3. I kinda like Bill. Yes, he’s enthusiastic and sometimes hyperbolic. So what? Frankly, it’s probably hard not to overcompensate in the face of the near constant onslaught of vitriol and mocking from the self-appointed keepers of the flame. FFS, people – move on. Talk about something useful.

Where’s Bob Zellin when you need him?

[Jeremy Garchow]

I haven’t had a chance to watch the videos all the way through yet, so I may be speaking out of turn.

Sometimes I think that people truly believe that FCPX is simple. It may be easier to approach for a novice, but it’s not simple.

I have an edit that I am working on today, and Oliver Peter’s himself said that the Audition features that allow me to store nearly every single take in the current Project are “useless”. I’m in rough cut stages now, but when the agency does come in, I am unbelievably ready to show them nearly every take, and I can do it in line without having to adjust much.

It is comments like this that probably don’t make any sense to someone who hasn’t used FCPX, and to those that do use FCPX and don’t use certain features like Auditions, it also doesn’t make any sense. But Auditions, and the magnetic timeline improve my workflow, and therefore my clients relations so much so, that it is better, and it is the best.

For me and my needs.

I’m not much for platitudes either. I don’t think one NLE is better than another, overall, it just may be better for you or your cohorts and sometimes that means it may be more comfortable. I also think that platitudinal speech about FCPX doesn’t even make any fracking sense to most people, because they haven’t felt what it’s like to successfully operate a better system, or at least a system that’s better for them.

If you are talking about editing as craft, I don’t see how Apple, FCPX, or anything is taking away the edit as craft. A director being able to send over a sequence with the takes they like is assembling selects. This could have been done on a notepad, but instead it’s done in the moment on the very same software. Taking those selects and making the action fluid and adding all the elements to make the performance work, is editing. Apple or FCPX doesn’t take this away from anyone including the editor.

[Herb Sevush]

[Bill Davis] “Previous NLEs were timelines that sat on top of a database… While FCP X is a database that sits on top of a timeline.
…
The X editor can EDIT in the database whether or not a timeline currently exists.. Setting In and out points, making coloring decisions, sound manipulations and a host of other frame accurate actual editing decisions which then carry over directly into the timeline when the editor eventually needs to employ one.”

Not meaning to be too petty, but to be historically accurate, 20 years ago the EMC2 had an “edit list” function that you could switch to at any time which showed your timeline as a CMX edit list (which is a pure data base construction) in which you could edit and manipulate your data, the results of which would show up in your timeline. So whatever it is that FCPX is first at, and I do believe there is something concrete to what you are saying, you haven’t defined it properly because with the EMC an editor could “Set In and out points … sound manipulations and a host of other frame accurate actual editing decisions which then carry over directly into the timeline when the editor eventually needs to employ one.”

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Bill Davis]

How bout we just agree that as the iPod came after the Diamond Reo (iIRC) and a couple of other far less successful MP3 players, it was less the order and more the “sum of the parts” that let Apple dominate the mobile music industry for so long. The market for a NLE is far smaller than for a personal music box, but I think the principal is the same. And as Jeremy noted, even those of us who are deep into X haven’t figured out all its corners yet. What he posted about auditions above kinda blew me away. I use them rarely – now I’m going to reconsider that. In another forum someone was kvetching about the the lack of a keystroke command for a one frame audio dissolve in X. Somebody else responded that manually doing those would take an extra hour – out of the DAYS ahead of schedule he was cutting on X. Forest and trees and all. Even funnier was the editor who is starting to like X, but she feels it’s “not very good for documentaries” followed by the guy who does nothing but documentaries saying it’s the best documentary tool he can imagine. It’s the same tool, but the way individuals see it and approach it can make a HUGE difference in their experience. Go figure.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[James Ewart]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “please enjoy milan below – the wipes are client lead.”

I think it works pretty well Aindreas. Out of interest how long to cut that piece? This is not a “ewww I could have done it quicker in FCPX” loaded question by the way. Just interested.