-
Focus – Light Iron videos
-
…and Neil has struck on the particular word that I was thinking about.
Perhaps as a person who must comment in a ‘restrained’ fashion, I am rather persnickety about words and as a very pragmatic person, I loathe hyperbole, even about the products I represent.
-
[Herb Sevush] “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.”
I think the Thomas Crowne Affair (1968) was one of the first movies to make great use of split screen. Previously more of a TV ‘Batman and Robin’ thing no? Great movie.
-
[Herb Sevush] “I wasn’t being particularly Auteurish above”
I was referring to other remarks about ownership of the film, and audience of one, etc.
In that context of the director using the editor to speak with his (the director’s) voice — I think the idea that there are TWO voices from the get-go is weirdly fascinating.
Maybe this is auteur-lite, but I’ve thought the paradox in auteur theory is the idea that one person (specifically the director and specifically not the writer), can have distinct intellectual ownership of and responsibility for the outcome of a highly collaborative effort. Without this concept, how else can you understand Hitchcock’s body of work as Hitchcock’s?
But my main point was really that this film is prima facie more collaborative than most because there is more than one directorial voice (even when they speak together).
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
I found these videos really interesting.
I remember early on, one of the knocks on X was that you supposedly couldn’t collaborate with others with it. I found it ironic that the main reason they picked X was because they all wanted to work together.
What was supposed to be X’s down fall was to them, it’s strength. I was just wondering if anyone else picked up on that irony.
As always, some are looking for that magic bullet that separates X from other NLE’s and as many have said on here before, and is said in the videos by the guys who pulled this off, it’s not one thing.
What X has that is so alluring to many, is that it does so many things right all at once.
It’s not just one thing.I saw Tim discussing what the director was saying and that’ fine, but I wanted to focus (no pun intended 🙂
on what the editor Jan had to say. Since, he is a top end editor and hard to argue that he doesn’t know what he is talking about at this pint in his career.I watched some of his work flow and listened to what he had to say. It was not much different from what many have said on here for a while, when it came to what he liked.
Something that he mentioned that gets lost on here is the concept of staying put.
When X came out it was clear that they wanted to keep you inside the app for as much of the work as possible. listening to Jan, that seemed to work great for him. He talked about mixing his audio, visual effects and titles all in X
X is built around staying inside it as much as possible(with help from 3rd party apps that I saw him using) but saving time by not going outside.
The only thing faster than round tripping is no tripping.
-
[Walter Soyka] ” I’ve thought the paradox in auteur theory is the idea that one person (specifically the director and specifically not the writer), can have distinct intellectual ownership of and responsibility for the outcome of a highly collaborative effort.”
That isn’t the paradox, that’s the assertion, which is that in the case of certain Directors there is a wealth of aesthetic pleasure to be found in watching any of their movies in the context of that Director’s oeuvre. This is not an assertion about the making of these movies, it is rather a way of watching these movies.
Now with many of the more prominent Auteurist Directors there is no doubt of their authorship – many not only directed but also wrote, co-wrote and/or produced their films. Even thought they were studio controlled, directors like Ford, Hitchcock, Welles, Lewis and Capra were clearly involved with the development of the projects they worked on even if they didn’t carry the formal role of producer. Hawks, Wilder, Fuller and Sturges wrote or co-wrote their films. It is impossible to watch any John Ford film and not recognize the authorship no matter who the writer, the producer, the editor or the cinematographer was – the same is true with all of the above named directors.
With the above, and that list is not remotely exhaustive, the authorship is clear and unequivocal, mostly because of the French new wave critics. For me the greatest achievement of the auterist theory was in championing the less obvious work of directors whose control over the material they worked on was not nearly as complete – Anthony Mann, Nicholas Ray, Robert Aldrich, Raoul Walsh, Don Siegel and on and on.
Again this is a theory of a way to watch movies, not a theory on the way movies are to be made. The idea is we can watch films the way we look at paintings – there is the painting in itself, but then there is the way we react to the knowledge that this is a Matisse, from his blue period. If you know nothing about Matisse, you gain the pleasure from the painting in itself. If you are aware of Matisse’s work then you can gain the additional pleasure of watching how that painting fits into the flow of his career, notice the echoes of his earlier work and how those traits will eventually lead him to this work that you are looking at. This knowledge is not necessary to enjoy the painting, it simply deepens your pleasure if you have it. The auteurists were merely bringing this aesthetic principal to the understanding of American movies.
As to why the director was chosen to be the center of this aesthetic vision, the answer was that you could not find a producer or writer or cinematographer or editor whose work could be viewed as an aesthetic continuum. It could be applied to specific actors – Betty Davis, James Cagney, John Wayne, Bogart – but they were much more at the mercy of the material they were given.
In TV you can find such aesthetic continuity in the works of Aaron Sorkin and many other Writer/Producers. An auteur theory is not needed here because no one doubts whose voice is being heard.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
Herb, great post. Thank you!
[Herb Sevush] “An auteur theory is not needed here because no one doubts whose voice is being heard.”
I thought an auteur reading is being promulgated with the assertions at the top of the thread that the editor has not added their unique voice — nor is it even the editor’s job to do so — but rather following the director.
But you’re certainly right that this conversation is more about the “cult of the director” than an auteur theory criticism. We’re mainly talking about the process and not the outcome; film criticism hasn’t entered into the discussion.
What I’m curious about, and not from a film criticism standpoint but a practical working-together one, is how that works with co-directors.
(That said, from a film criticism perspective, I would still question whose voice is heard! There are two responsible minds here. How do you disentangle them?)
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Jeff Markgraf] ” 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.”
Great rant. 🙂 This is exactly the case in the trailer world here in LA as well. FCP X can drive one batsh*t crazy at times like any NLE, but it’s remarkably well suited for this niche, as myself and the 10 other people who use it regularly here can attest. 😉 In my almost 2 decades of doing this, I’ve never seen so many people making software decisions based on what companies they compete with are using. Go figure…
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
Directors should find some on this thread insulting. Directors hire editors, not the other way around.
-
[Walter Soyka] ” I would still question whose voice is heard! There are two responsible minds here. How do you disentangle them?”
You don’t, unless and until they split up and produce separate work on their own. How could you untangle Lennon/McCartney songs until you had both Lennon and McCartney songs.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Ty Vann] “Directors should find some on this thread insulting. Directors hire editors, not the other way around.”
And producers hire directors.
(Auteur that!)
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn]
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up