John August

Directors

Does the editor even read the script?

Directors, Film Industry, QandA

Does the editor read the script and use it as a framework when the screenwriter is not involved in editing? How else does she make sense of all the footage the director has shot to cut into a cohesive whole? Also, do you see the editor’s role as bringing to screen the vision of the screenwriter?

— dabba
via imdb

The editor almost certainly reads the script at least once, before she signs on for the job. After that, it’s hard to say.

Pretty much everyone who’s ever taken an editing class has had some variation of this common assignment: given a bag of random footage (or a folder, in the digital age), you’re told to assemble it into a meaningful sequence.

And the thing is, you can. So even if editors never cracked the script open, they could still do their job. Every scene has a scene number associated with it, which comes from the script, so there’s not even a question of, “Does the car chase come first, or the bank robbery?”

Is it the editor’s job to bring the screenwriter’s vision to the screen? Nope. The editor’s job is to make the best movie possible given the footage shot, which is often a source of potential conflict between the screenwriter and editor. The screenwriter says, “This scene is about Kyle forgiving Mary!” The editor replies, “No, it’s about Mary looking for her keys. That’s what was shot. I can’t make it something it’s not.”

While I’ve had good relationships with most of the editors on the films I’ve written, there’s no question that the editor works primarily for the director. To the degree I’ve been able to help out in post-production, it’s been providing thoughtful notes that not only point out problems but offer solutions.

I always write up my notes so the whole team can read them, and agree or disagree. On a first cut, that might mean 12 pages of notes. But so far, at least, it’s proved to be a help. Editors, like screenwriters, are generally bombarded by the opinions of people who think they know best. So I make sure the tone is respectful.

For example, from the first Charlie’s Angels:

The outside tables
We should flop the order of business in this scene, starting with Vivian Wood looking though the file and trying to get them to hand over full access to the computer. Only after she’s denied does Knox ask them to go out.

Here’s the big change: the subtitled Finnish is completely different. The angels are still in work mode, talking about how Knox could still be in danger, this may not all be over, et cetera. We exit on a look between Dylan and Knox, setting up that there may be potential ahead.

My notes are always addressed to the director, but they’re ultimately for the use of the editor, who can implement whatever seems workable.

When the editor and screenwriter respect each other, I think it can be a very fruitful relationship. The screenwriter generally has more distance from the production, and can look with fresher eyes than the editor, who know where all the bodies (and bad takes) are buried.

Writer and Director and Disaster

Directors, QandA

Do you think it’s bad for the movie, if the story, the screenplay and directing is being done by the same person?

— Karri Tahvanainen
via IMDb

Not if that one person is extremely talented. Some of my favorite movies come from writer-directors, who carried the project from conception to completion.

But there are certainly writers who shouldn’t direct, and directors who would be better off leaving the words to someone else. For instance…

No, actually, I won’t name names. But it’s not hard to think of a few examples.

It may be helpful to compare the attributes of a writer to the life of a director.

WRITER: works alone, sets own schedule, implements notes
DIRECTOR: works with crew, follows production schedule, gives notes

The job of a writer and the job of a director are fundamentally different, which is why so few people are great at both.

But I think there are situations where the writer is justified in choosing to direct his own material, even if he is a misanthropic slow-poke who has trouble communicating with others. Some stories have such a unique vision and voice, they can really only be told by one person.

For example, [Kevin Smith](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0003620/) often gets ragged on for his directing, and I think even he’d admit that his films don’t always look that great. His camera work isn’t inspired. His staging can be awkward. But the fact is, a “more talented” director couldn’t make a Kevin Smith movie. His films rely on a certain attitude and personality that only he can provide. Terrence Malick’s CLERKS just wouldn’t be the same.

Seeing a rough cut of your film

Directors, QandA

If a screenwriter gets a film produced, will he or she get to see a rough cut of the film at its earliest stage?

–Geoff
Nova Scotia

That mostly depends on the writer’s relationship with the director and producer(s). If the screenwriter has been an active collaborator throughout the process, then definitely. If the relationship hasn’t been as close, it’s more likely the writer won’t see the first few rough cuts of the film.

And that’s a mistake. The writer should absolutely be included in the editing process. While the rest of the team has been bogged down in weeks or months of production hell, the writer generally has fresh eyes to all of the material shot. He’s not sick of the actors, the locations, and the scenes which took all night to shoot. Instead, he remembers the movie everyone was trying to make six months ago.

By WGA policy, any writer who works on a given film is supposed to have the opportunity to screen a cut of the film early enough in the editing process that any notes or suggestions he may have can be incorporated. For a long time, this rule was never enforced. Over the past few years, however, the studios have gotten better about making sure these screenings happen — although they often occur too late to be productive. For instance, I’ve sat in writer screenings where the film was already color-timed. No matter what I wanted to suggest, the movie was already locked.

Recently, there’s been a push to invite the writer to the first test-screening, assuming the screening happens in the Los Angeles area. It’s certainly a good idea, since huge decisions are often made based on the results of these screenings, and the screenwriter may be needed to implement them.

The movies I’m proudest of are the ones in which I was able to take a significant role in post-production, whether that was sitting down next to the Avid or talking through specifics with the director. I don’t always get everything changed the way I’d like, but I do feel the films are better for the input.

Actors and dialogue

Directors, QandA

Do you allow your actors to own the words of a script without any intervention
or do you sometimes change the way they speak the dialogue?

–Ruble

In terms of feature films, that’s a better question for the director, because
ultimately it’s the director who guides the performance. But in times when
I’ve been on set as a writer (such as GO), I try to step back and let the actor
find the right way to get the words out.

When you tell an actor exactly how to say something, that’s called "giving
a line reading," and it’s considered one of the biggest no-no’s, sure
to raise the hackles of actors everywhere. But there are subtle ways to influence
a line’s delivery without explaining it word for word.

For instance, an actor might be directed to "throw the line away," (play
it as unimportant, even if it’s not), or "really let it sting." Another
technique is to offer an alternative line that the actor can play in his head
while saying the line written. For instance, "When you say, ‘It’s really
nice to see you," let it mean ‘Go to Hell.’" The important thing
is to let the actor find the means – the tone and inflection – while getting
across the intended message.