We'll fix it in post!

We'll fix it in post!
After seeing a few articles via the B-Independent message board about editing etc. I figured I'd do a quick article about POST PRODUCTION and maybe offer some advice to aspiring editors (and film producers/directors etc.) out there. Please excuse if the article is not the most eloquent but I have another project to edit very soon. So anyway, here goes.
The first thing I guess I should do is introduce myself. My name is Johnny Crash. I have been editing, producing, directing for just over 4 years now. Before that I studied media technology in England for 5 years. Alongside my study I spent my evenings, weekends and holidays working for any company which would take me, doing any job I could, usually for no money!
So, I have been in the industry for just under a decade. I have edited well over 500 projects in that time, which equates to roughly a project a week, for the last 9 years (or you could say a project every three and a half days for the last 4 1/2 years, which is probably more like it!) I've worked on everything from feature films to wedding video's. From a friends pop promo to network TV shows and many many things in between. I've worked on mega-budget productions and mega-no budget productions. I've worked for ultimate corporate companies and ultimate non-corporate companies. So, I guess, in my own way, I am now qualified, in some small way, to have my say! Ha ha ha... Here it comes. Hope you enjoy.
In my opinion "post production" means this: Once the camera's have stopped rolling and all your shots are in the can, you go into "post". I also say that there are three main elements to any production: Pre-production, Production and Post Production. So, my first question, which I will not attempt to answer, is this. Why is it that more often than not, the pre-production team will have a few months to prep' everything while dining over sushi or sipping beer. The production teams will have mega-budgets, massive crews and nice hot meals provided, along with wild parties at the end of the shoot. Yet the poor old post production team get nothing, other than really tight deadlines?
I often find that the post production team is more often than not a frustrated musician who is now a sound man. A frustrated film director, who is now an editor and a frustrated fashion designer who is now doing the odd visual effects (if you are lucky!). On top of this, these poor "people of post" usually work in a timeless zone/room, with no windows. There is rarely sushi supplied (unless you are at a top London/NYC facility) and there is almost absolutely no chance of having a wild party with all the celeb's who you spend so much time editing to look cool!
The point I am trying to make here is that I believe post production is just as important as any other phase of production. Of course it is, because if the film is not edited people cannot watch it. If there is no sound people cannot hear it. However, I also find that it is one of the most over looked aspects of production where just a few people are left to put the jigsaw together. For example, how many times on a shoot do you hear those wonderful words "We'll fix it in post!"
Well, this is a good place to start because I am often that faceless person commonly referred to as "post". The one everyone is relying on when they say those words, and, more often than not, the one who has had no involvement in the actual production. I also believe that "We'll fix it in post" has become something of a trendy term. Of course, it's a great way to make your project sound bigger than it actually is by implying that you have this Harry Potter type wizard on your team who can concoct a magic formula and hey presto, you have a blockbuster movie on your hands. However, I find that "post" in the indie film scene is often little old me and my PC. A sound mixer. And sometimes, if I am lucky, software such as Combustion, After Effects and 3DS Max.
What people seem to forget/not realize is that when you say those words what you are actually saying is, in my opinion, "we've not taken time to do pre-production" or "we're running behind, so we'll leave it to that faceless guy who has to sit with the producers and explain why the project has not turned out as the director expected." What people are expecting to be fixed in post, can soon become a week's work, a new piece of software required, or even worse, more of your budget being spent (and there is nearly always no budget left by the time things get to a post stage.) So, when you hear someone deliver those words on set, especially on an indie film, I would say "if it can be fixed out of post then fix it out of post!"
Secondly, while "post" can do a lot of things, "post" are not magicians. "Post" cannot re-position people in shots. "Post" cannot magic an exterior shot. "Post" cannot make rain drops disappear. Well... that's not quite true. If you have a serious budget, a lot of time, and a professional post team, then they really can do wonders. However, in the world of indie film making, I say they cannot because, in most circumstances, budgets and time are not on our side.
What frustrates me the most is that many projects budgets are spent on elaborate productions. Crews, lights, camera's, catering etc... this all costs money. I've worked on many a project where I have seen loads of people involved in the actual production. Months of hard work put into it. Then, once the shoot is finished, 20 or 30 tapes are handed over to one or two people (I'm usually one of those people) and we are expected to turn the work into a film, an MTV-style program, whatever, in a couple of weeks.
So, my first rule of thumb is this, and it is for the producers of the world, If you want your project to look good, then find your editor straight away. Doing this as part of pre-production could really benefit you. Editors are generally nice people and would love to be involved in the production in some way. If they are involved in the production process, your project can only benefit, in my opinion. After all, an editor with experience will know exactly what shots are needed to make the scene work. Just like the director should. However, I have found myself sat in many edit sessions where the directors have had a great idea but they simply have not got the coverage needed. This leaves the editor in the awkward position, of having to be the one who tells the director that their plans are not going to work because they do not have all the elements required.
My next rule of thumb is to get all the elements in place to start with. First off, and most important, is obviously get the right shots (director). A wide, mid and close up will always keep an editor happy but if there are other shots available, grab them. It is a lot less expensive to shoot the first time round instead of having to re-set up a scene and call cast and crew back for pick up shots. The amount of times I find myself at four in the morning having to scan tapes looking for that one extra cutaway is unbelievable.
Anyway, assuming that all the right shots have been filmed, the main elements the post production team/editor will need are ALL the video tapes. ALL the music/sound effects and ALL the graphics (or effects). I emphasize the word ALL because often I find that an editor will be presented with "most" of the tapes but not all of them. They will be given a CD or two with some music and sound effects and that is usually that. I then find that they get immersed in the project. Do the best to cover missing shots, lay in different music etc., and sure enough, once they get the rest of the tapes, odds are it is shots which you were crying out for earlier in the edit. This then means that timelines have to be moved around. Shot's inserted, removed etc. and it can become a very timely process and will often lead to a messy time line, which in my opinion, will almost always lead to a messy final cut.
I personally prefer to edit knowing exactly what I have at my disposal. The music can drive a scene, just like the shots can. So, having music to edit to is often a lot better. This does not mean that every edit has to be to the beat of the music, far from it. However, I suggest sitting down, with the director, listening to the music and asking for his/her input. A good director will have the music in mind from the very start of the project. However, this is sometimes not the case, so it is up to you to help the director and make suggestions. Put your points across and if all goes to plan you can both get what you want out of it. I find this is also of ultimate importance when editing trailers.
Trailers are frame dependent. A frame here or there can ruin the pacing. The voice over should be recorded prior to the edit, so that shots can be positioned perfectly first time around. Having to cut a trailer and then lay in the voice over is not going to work. Well, it works, kind of ...but you know... It'll be a lot easier and faster and less hassle on your system if you do not keep having to move shots around to fit the voice. It also means not having to save so many backups of the project, ie. version 1 without voice, version 2 with voice, version 44 with voice but shot 112 moved two frames to the right etc. etc. Trust me, I have been there many times.
My next point I would suggest is that it is important for an editor to work with a script and storyboards if possible, and also with at least the director or producer present. Many times an editor can find him/herself all alone, editing a scene or movie only to find later that what they believed was how the footage was meant to be laid down, was no where near how the director had envisaged it. I'll quote an old BBC editor I knew in England. He had 30 years experience and was a grumpy old man if you did not have all your elements in place and/or kept trying to sneak out of the edit, but he knew his stuff and his work was amazing. He taught me for 6 months on the Avid and always used the phrase "I'm not psychic" when he was in the situation I have just mentioned. This is a very relevant point as people (especially producers) really will sometimes expect you to have psychic capabilities and it just doesn't ever work.
Every editor I have ever met, no matter how much they would love to be, are simply not psychic! So, through experience, I would suggest avoiding, at all cost, working on projects without the director or producer being present. It can not only waste your time but it can also end up costing the production more money. People will often say refer to the script. Ah, well yes, but you drop in a close up, they may want the mid shot or wide. Before you know it, you've edited half the project and although the project may look fine to you, the director could well end up wanting to change nearly all the shots. The only instance I would say a director or producer does not have to be present is if a complete shot list/time log has been submitted, so you have absolutely no doubt about what shots should go where. This rarely happens though. Even in the big companies, I've often found myself spending days digitizing logged shots and then having to fumble my way through all on my own. Obviously, if your producers and directors are cool and really do trust your judgment, then make the most of it because it is certainly not always going to be like that.
The next thing I would suggest would be to do your utmost to offer input but make sure you listen to other people's idea's. The whole process of building a film/tv program is usually a group thing. Do not make the editing your own project. It is easy to slip into this situation. Usually producers and directors will have been working on the project much longer than you have, as the post guys are often employed right at the last phase of production (see above.) So, again, take time to listen to what they want. If you feel you have a better idea, I suggest doing what they want, then asking for a few minutes to duplicate the edit and perform your alternative. Most directors and producers are more than happy to work this way.
To round things up, I would say that you need to get in as much practice as possible. I read on a site other than this one where an editor was stating that you cannot learn editing. Well, I disagree. Maybe you will not have natural flair but you can still learn the process of editing a competent piece together. Consider a musician. Someone has natural flair, they do not need much practice. However, someone really wants to learn music but does not have a natural flair, they can still learn music. I'm trying desperately to think of a good example here but one does not come to mind. Either way, you can't tell me that all the bands out today have natural flair! Anyway, what I am saying is do not be afraid to get your fingers and mind working as one. Lay down the music and edit. Look for shots which seem attractive. A blink of an eye. A curl of a lip. A turn of a face. Look for the footage which interests you. Then cut it and re-cut it. Try different shots, different in points/out points etc. etc.
Finally, I remember the day I was in school and my teacher went round the class asking everyone what they wanted to be when they grew up. I said a TV Cameraman. Everyone thought I was crazy. I remember the first time I stepped into the digital edit suite at college and saw a non linear edit suite (lightworks). I was blown away and the lecturer giving the tour said he doubted any of us would get up to par to use it. I remember the first day I saw an avid suite and all the digi-beta decks. I never thought I would be able to learn any of it, and it's funny that the people who say you cannot learn editing are usually the ones who are earning their wages editing. Oh, um... Maybe I should shut up.... of course you can't learn editing. It's really tough.... Years of practice. And...Oh yeah... of course you can fix it in post. Just be sure to buy me some sushi. Oh well, as yer an indie with no budget, a couple of slices of pizza and the stars autograph will do me just fine!
Gotta go.... have a project to edit and the directors buggered off home early.
Johnny Crash
Director, Spider-Babe