Be Bold

Two weeks ago, I wrote about a rough-cut screening and the feedback that came out of it. I’d been toying with the idea of handing the edit over to a professional editor, thinking their experience – and a fresh pair of eyes – might bring it to life. Unfortunately, the guy I had in mind has too much work of his own, so it was down to me and I felt a bit swamped.

The general consensus from the screening was that, once past the first hour, the audience was engaged, but it took far too long to get going, and there were too many threads in play.

I tinkered around here and there before hitting on the idea of grouping scenes by location, pulling similar settings together. I ran this past Google Gemini and, for the first time, it flatly rejected my idea, suggesting I do virtually the opposite – organise the film not by location but by emotional charge. Of course.

Of course, of course!

I saved the old version and resolved to take a far more ruthless approach with the new cut. I reworked the first half of the film, ignoring continuity issues. (I’m learning that these are often not as critical as one imagines). I set about trimming back, if not mercilessly, then certainly more assertively. I think in the past I’d erred on the side of caution; this time, if I feel something should go, I’ll cut and be damned.

Editing can be a fairly lonely process, and after a while, I’d had enough of it. But by the middle of last week, I got my second wind. I’d wanted a fresh eye, and in a way I’ve managed to give myself one. I began to see that my earlier cuts had been way too slow. Too methodical. Too unthinking. By then, I was spotting it in nearly every scene. There was too much redundant dialogue left in. One scene in particular is meant to jolt the audience, but was flagged during the test screening as needing more punch. I went back and tightened it considerably, cutting it from nearly 3 minutes to around 1 minute 40.

I’d also been wrestling with continuity in a couple of scenes. Another conversation with Gemini re-framed that entirely. It suggested treating it not as a problem but an opportunity to introduce some disruption. With that in mind, I hacked away at the scene, then brought in some takes I’d previously thought unusable. By the end of the week I’d reduced the runtime from 2 hours 7 minutes to 1 hour 53.

There is still a chance a couple more scenes might have to go, though I hope not. More work is needed, but I feel I’m making progress.

Then on Saturday, I turned my attention to prepping my spare room to double as a call centre for a pick up shot. “Impossible!” you might say? It turns out it’s not. I picked up a useful lesson from my DOP: it doesn’t matter what the whole room looks like, only what you can see through the lens. So, with an 80mm portrait lens and a shallow depth of field, the background falls out of focus. All I needed then was to get the right colours and shapes in place. Fingers crossed, I think I’ve done it.

Tasks for next week: schedule the pick-up shots and carry on with this more ruthless edit. I’m still not entirely certain that I’m fixing all the issues raised after the test screening, and I still may have to hand over to a professional editor for the final pass. But, for now, I’ll see how far I can get with this version myself.

Bollocks to Process

Last week was a very hectic week. Monday saw us kick off with some scenes in a flat in Hove. Two guys talking on Zoom. Simple enough, you’d think. But no! Because the minute computers get involved, all sorts of complications arise. Last time we did a similar scene, we’d learned something that now seems bleeding obvious: if you shoot an over-the-shoulder shot of someone on a Zoom call, the camera operator (and probably the sound guy, director and the AD) will also be visible. This time, the headaches came from a couple of the “digital props” I’d put together, such as images and web pages displayed on laptops. I hadn’t fully thought it through, so there was a fair bit of faffing around while we worked out the logistics.

Once those scenes were wrapped, we walked a mere 15 minutes north to a different flat in another block. Here we filmed a scene that was…..let’s say, quite lively. Part of it took place in the communal hallway, and the flat’s owner was worried that the neighbours might call the police. Thankfully, it all went off without incident, with excellent performances from Keaton and Stewart.

Wednesday and Thursday were spent back at the Hove flat with Keaton, Lamb, Simon and Oliver. These scenes are closer to the end of the film, where tensions rise and tempers flare, with lots of shouting and swearing, and in one particular scene, there were three of our allocated quota of “fucks” in a single sentence. As the script writer, it’s a remarkable feeling to see your vision brought to life by such skilled actors, and the hair on the back of my neck stood up.

At one point, piano music drifted from a nearby flat. A quick phone call later, and the guy had kindly agreed to refrain from playing, but I felt a bit guilty because our shoot was probably making a shocking racket.

Morgan did an outstanding job as DOP, and we managed to get some strong shots. Alistair on sound was brilliant too, especially as we were trying to make three different flats from one. He was nipping around, constantly checking the audio.

Chatting later, I remarked that we seem to spend much of our time finding ways around problems, and someone said that “Filmmaking is constant problem-solving”. I think they were spot on, particularly for indie filmmakers.

For example, the past week has really shown me the value of a script supervisor for continuity. When we shoot scenes from multiple angles, we have to repeat them several times, and each shot requires numerous takes. This has benefits and drawbacks. The upside: the actors have a chance to settle into the scene and find the best delivery. The downside: they sometimes have to repeat it too many times. Plus, someone has to remember every tiny detail – when she put her cup down, when she took off her coat, when he threw down his headphones, when he picked up his phone, and whether the door was open or closed in the last take. In short, someone has to monitor every bloody move the actors make. Months ago, Angela suggested hiring a script supervisor; I didn’t see the point at the time. Now I can. Luckily, Angela has taken on this role herself, and I’m incredibly grateful, although juggling it alongside wardrobe, casting, and AD duties is quite a load.

Another thing that struck me: after each take, everyone has comments about problems and improvements from their perspective. Sound, lighting, camera, continuity, dialogue. It can get quite fraught as we all try to get our points addressed before the next take. I’m still on a learning curve and a lot of what we do is improvisation, but each time I find myself considering how we can manage issues more efficiently, perhaps with a documented process.

But I just reread what I wrote: “ensure that issues are efficiently managed by a documented process”. I could have added that these processes could be measured against maturity levels, standardised, optimised – I spent too long in corporate life. That is the antithesis of this film!

Bollocks to process!!!!!!

This week, we’re releasing the first of Julie Russell’s interviews with the cast in two parts. Julie is chatting with Stewart, who plays Ray and Gillian, who plays Donna.

Next week, get that schedule pinned down and finalise that truck!