remixable

By Gary King For background history on the film project – visit my previous New Breed Article: “A LOVELY Filmmaking Process”

Having achieved picture lock with WHAT’S UP LOVELY, I feel that I am now able to fully cover the details of the decision-making process during the editing stage — and how engaging with test audiences affected its final outcome. Mind you, we are still in post-production as of this writing (currently getting the score and sound work done) so never say never, but I’m 99.9% sure that the edit is locked.

After wrapping production in May 2009, I began the task of putting together an assembly cut based on the treatment that I had developed with Jenn Dees (who plays the main character “Luci”). Since I was editing the project myself, I took the very unorthodox approach of not slating a single take as we shot. I knew that I was going to personally log and organize all the footage — which meant watching every single frame that was shot (in addition to already having seen it “live on the set”). Becoming very familiar with the footage — every nuance and performance — would be my goal before beginning the creative edit. Would I do this again? It depends on the project. For something with a concrete script with scene numbers — no way. For another improv-based project such as this — probably.

The Editing Begins
Here is my LOVELY Editing Roadmap. I managed to sketch it out (during about Week 6 of the editing phase) while waiting to meet a friend at a hotel in New York’s Union Square. Yes, my mind works at the oddest times which is why I try to bring a notebook me wherever I go.

(CLICK THE PICTURE TO ENLARGE — there are spoliers in there, but I wouldn’t worry about it. Good for you if you can read my chicken scratch let alone make sense of anything. I think I’m insane.)

As you can see (or more likely as you CAN’T see) — my mind was going all over the place as I ordered out every single scene of the film. I also added little notes for new ideas to try out. Then I shuffled scenes around a bit as I was sketching the roadmap as things became clearer on the order they needed to appear.

I am sure this method is pretty unusual, but it definitely helped me since there was no formal script. And having edited for several weeks I finally could feel what was working and what was not in terms of storytelling and pacing.

In early August 2009, a preliminary cut was finished and in enough shape to share with an audience for feedback. Not having access to an affordable public venue, I invited people over to my apartment. Ideally for my next project(s) – I will be able to locate someplace in New York within my budget to hold test screenings. Many non-traditional places willing to let you use their space require the projector and screen – which I do not own. Researching such venues with the necessary equipment is on my To-Do list.

Anonymous surveys were handed out to the audience members (comprised of close friends and colleagues — and friends of friends) after the screening. I also extended an invitation to stay afterward and discuss the film should they wish to share their thoughts in an open forum with others. Following the model provided by Zak Forsman, I informed everyone that I would not defend anything in the film during the talk. I was simply there to listen and address specific questions — which I turned back on them if at all possible to see how their initial reactions from the screening influenced their thoughts and conclusions about the film.

ASSEMBLY CUT SCREENING – 76 mins – Initial reactions were mainly confusions and dislikes around three specific scenes (thankfully, it was consistently these three scenes or I would have been in trouble trying to figure out where to begin). To my relief everyone liked the main character “Luci” and actually wanted more of her — even though she already occupied about 90% of the screen time. This was a very good sign we were on the right track — as both Jenn and I felt it was crucial to create a likable character if the audience was to spend as much time with her as they do. For this cut, the original ending was entirely omitted and a new (more open-ended) one was created. This film leaves much to interpretation and I was concerned it was too out there for its own good. I am aware of the motto that “It’s good to be ambiguous…but you have to be clearly ambiguous.” The good news was everyone seemed ok with the ending. It should be noted that the crowd invited consisted of people who enjoy arthouse cinema and therefore my target audience.

Before the next screening, I met with Jenn to discuss the audience reaction. We talked about the changes needed and some voiceover work that had to be revised to match the evolving storyline.

ROUGH CUT 1 SCREENING - 71 mins – Original ending reinstated (but now placed in Act 1 of the film). Shaved off a few minutes by tightening every scene in the film (removed extraneous dialogue, added additional voiceover sequences). Anonymous surveys later revealed that now only one scene (of the original three unclear scenes identified at the previous screening) still needed some work. Additionally, post-screening conversations revealed that a few viewers picked up on the story elements loosely based on a literary classic (which shall remain nameless) which I was happy to hear — but I was encouraged to be more “clearly ambiguous” for the next cut should I wish viewers to really pick up on it. The talk also sparked a healthy debate in the room regarding the film’s symbolism and themes (I just sat back and smiled knowing the film had done its job in that respect).

Before the next rough cut screening, I decided to get a few pick up shots (which was now 5 months later from the original shoot) with Jenn Dees and Aidan Kane (a supporting character) — mainly to create a newly found storyline that needed a few shots to set up. Luckily they had not changed their appearance drastically. Additionally, some major plot points in the original written treatment were not as important anymore and were dropped or trimmed down. Jenn also recorded some new voiceover material to replace previous content in light of some new story developments. We were both really encouraged in what we were discovering and shaping.

ROUGH CUT 2 SCREENING – 70 mins – Deleted 2 voiceover sequences, re-edited others. Original ending now shifted to Act 2 of the film with the newly created storyline. Added a new shot for the ending. Feedback was very positive and encouraging. Although not an all-time favorite director of mine, it was nice to hear someone say “it’s like a good David Lynch film.” I also bit my lip and held back wanting to say to the group as the film ended, “it looks like you all want to say WTF?” Maybe that’s a new genre? Instead of “arthouse cinema” it should be called “wtf cinema” — meant in a good way.

The most positive aspect of the last test screening was the questions raised were exactly the ones I wanted to hear — but did not wish the film to answer. It had achieved its goal and I was a proud father.

I went out with Jenn for a last round of pick up shots to help flesh out visually the final voiceover work. I also tinkered with swapping a few shots around — but nothing major was changed. I should also point out that in between these formal test audience screenings, I was creating multiple versions of the film and sharing them with Jenn and a few other close people for feedback.

So here we are. At Picture Lock.

As they say, a movie is written 3 times:

#1 – script (when you write it)
#2 – filming (when you shoot it)
#3 – editing (when you edit it)

For this improv based project, the whole movie ultimately comes down to the editing. Stories could be added, deleted or shaped based on the direction we wanted to go. And luckily, the way it was shot we had some flexibility to do it. We were not always locked in to one plot point. We had some options.

From the 30+ hours of footage, LOVELY has been shaped into a nice 69-minute film. You can read about how I feel regarding its running time on my blog entry titled “Size Doesn’t Matter”.

I love the test screening process. If nothing else, it gets an extra set of eyes on your film to gauge how it is working (or not). Sometimes a filmmaker can be too connected to the material and not realize that important elements can be lost in translation to others. Of course, it would be impossible to please every viewer in the room and that should never be the goal. Think of it as just another tool — a very valuable one — to help determine if you are connecting with your audience the way you want to.

Next Up: Scoring the Film With 2 Composers

Here is the Official Trailer:

WHAT’S UP LOVELY – Official Trailer from Gary King on Vimeo.

For more stories from the front lines visit the New Breed.

Gary King is an independent filmmaker based in New York whose work is recognized for powerful performances with an emphasis on a strong, visual style. He made his feature film debut with the critically acclaimed drama “New York Lately”. His ability to skillfully apply his filmmaking craft across genres led him to direct the grisly indie horror film “Dismal” from Fearmakers. He is currently in post-production with his latest DIY feature film “What’s Up Lovely” which already has film websites buzzing about its visual style and elegance. It will be released in 2010.