Cutter

For the past couple of months, the blog has been filled with offhand comments like “Jim this,” and “The editor that.” However, I realized recently that I haven’t yet taken the time to properly introduce you to our erstwhile cutter in residence, Jim McGivney, or as he’s known in certain circles, “The Irish Whiskey.” (Okay, I just made that up, but it would be a cool codename.)

Though he had been editing “rush cuts” of the film since the summer, Jim came into the post-production process relatively fresh. That’s to say that he had months to work at a leisurely pace without any deadlines or supervision and now, having lost that luxury, has me up his ass fortnightly.

In all seriousness, Jim was something of a lifeline during those hazy weeks towards the end when I started to lose myself in the process. He was close enough to the project to understand and sympathize, but distant enough to offer perspective. Jim talked me off a couple metaphoric ledges, helped remind me why I’m making Women’s Studies, and just gave me an outlet to bitch.

Not only that, but he gets my love of once great but now mediocre football teams (He’s a fan of both a Washington Redskins and Notre Dame. Tragic, I know.) as well as my appreciation of cheap beer and cheaper bar food.

If I have to spend the next few months figuring this movie out, I couldn’t have better company.

# # #

Lonnie Martin:
All right, man. Give me Jim McGivney: The E! Hollywood Story.

Jim McGivney:
“My story? Okay. It was never easy for me. I was born a poor black child. I remember the days, sittin' on the porch with my family, singin' and dancin' in Mississippi...”

Let's see...I was born August 12, 1977 in Indianapolis, IN, after 24 hours of labor and the deft use of a pair of forecepts. The oldest of three, I've been more into television and music than most people for as long as I remember, though I didn't start to create until high school. I still remember the conversation that set me on my way to becoming a filmmaker: my Dad had read about a new film made by some first-time director that was getting rave reviews and that I could do as good a job, if not better, than that guy (the film was Reservoir Dogs, "that guy," Quentin Tarantino). Then I saw a great little movie called Clerks, made for next to nothing by a guy with even less experience than that Tarantino fella. Making movies suddenly seemed accessible and from then on I took a more active interest in my high school TV class and the movies I watched daily at my job as a video store clerk. After graduating from James Madison University, I got a job as a corporate video producer and first laid my hands on an Avid non-linear editing system. I also directed my first film; a short comedy called, cyber sex?, which marked the first collaboration between myself and a younger but equally hirsute Lonnie Martin. I've since worked with him on First Session and the award-winning 48 Hour Film Project entry, Under the Bed, and have spent every day praying that our wives don't find out about our thinly-veiled homosexual affair (though I suspect they know but just don't care).

LM:
Hirsute? You're not exactly folicly challenged these days yourself. What's that all about?

JMc:
Oh, this old thing? *Strokes chin* Well, after visiting the set in October I realized that I cannot call myself a Women's Studies crew member if didn't have wild hair sprouting from every pore north of my neckline. No, I'm actually growing this for a charity called Beards BeCAUSE, which benefits the Battered Women's Shelter of Charlotte. We grow our beards unhindered for two months, looking like hobos for our holiday photos and, in return, people pledge money which goes to benefit the Shelter. The idea is to take something commonly thought of as "manly" and associate it with helping those women who've been victims of a cowardly act. We're only halfway through the "growing season" but the response has been amazing.

LM:
Wow. So you're like the only crew member of Women's Studies who's actually walking the women's rights walk, not just talking the talk.

JMc:
Only from a facial-hair-growth standpoint - those other furry fellas are strictly recreational - besides, my beloved director and producer did throw a donation my way.

LM:
So, they say that and editor and a director develop a "special, one of a kind bond" during Post. Are you feeling it yet?

JMc:
If by that you mean, "Do you hate the sight, smell or thought of Lonnie Martin?" then, "No. Not yet."

No, I know the bond you're referring to, but I don't think we're there yet. The start and stop nature of our WS work together so far hasn't really allowed for it, nor has it been necessary. That'll start to develop after a couple rounds of rough cuts and notes are exchanged. Besides, this is our third project as director/editor so I'm sure it'll be quick to return - the relationship equivalent of the "shampoo effect" after a good bender, I'd say.

LM:
It's fitting that you use a hangover metaphor to describe our relationship. Okay then. Influences, both cinematic and non.

JMc:
God I hate these...they're too hard for me to narrow down, but it's your dime so...

Cinematic (aside from the aforementioned Miramax alum): Michael Mann, Tim Burton, David Fincher, Simon Pegg, John Carpenter. Non-cinematic: my wife, my family, Bill Hicks, Maynard James Keenan/TOOL, music of all varieties, a Catholic-upbringing, a lonely, tormented adolescence, comic books, Eliza Dushku.

LM:
Jim, we're one cut in. How's it feel?

JMc:
Oddly freeing. What's been made apparent by this first cut is that there is in fact a movie here; that, at the most basic level, we now know that those chunks of audio and video that you, the cast and the crew have spent the last few months collecting will tell the story we want to tell when strung together. It's still a long way from being watchable, but it is definitely in there.

Also, it's freeing for me because all the pieces of the puzzle are now at our disposal, whereas before there was always something missing. Be it a shot, a line of dialog or an entire scene, some part of Women's Studies simply did not exist and even if I didn't need it, it was unsettling. Now I literally have 10 hard drives full of puzzle pieces to choose from and, though it might take some digging, I know I'm going to be able to find the size and shape piece that I need at any given moment and that's a credit to the talent and hard work of everyone involved in production.

LM:
You seem to be enjoying yourself.

JMc:
So far I am... though we should do a follow up in February, when I hate the sight, smell or thought of you.

LM:
You mean when I ask you to burn all the footage, so we can become paper pushers?

JMc:
I'm already prepping the Strayer application, my man.

LM:
All this joking around and people are going to think we don't take this seriously. Filmmaking however (editing in particular) is supposed to be fun. How do you find the right balance?

JMc:
Jokes are the only thing that drown out the anguished cries of my soul, Lonnie.

Actually, that whole idea that "filmmaking is fun" is a misnomer; a god-damned filthy lie, if you will. It's a passion, true, and one that I enjoy, but it's not "fun." Does agonizing over whether or not your artistic vision will drive you to greatness or financial ruin sound like fun? Sitting alone in a dark room listening to the same three lines of dialogue loop for ten hours sound like a real hoot? Is spending thirty-six sleepless hours with a cast of beautiful, blood-soaked actresses your idea of a good weekend? Well then, let...wait, where was I going with this?

LM:
See? It is fun! I get what you're saying though. It's worthwhile, but it isn't exactly easy.

JMc:
Exactly. It certainly can be fun, but more often it is exhausting, frustrating WORK. What makes it worth enduring is the end result, watching that final product with friends, family, colleagues and complete strangers; seeing their reactions, hearing that first scream/laugh/gasp (the intentional ones), feeling the validation of time and effort spent. For all it's glitz and glamour, film makers do what they do for the same reason anyone produces anything: passion.

That and those beautiful, blood-soaked actresses.

Sound Garden

I learned the hard way that sound can make or break a film. On my first short film, First Session, my original sound guy kind of flaked out on me, and I was left with a fast approaching deadline and virtually no soundtrack.

Thankfully, I got introduced to Sean Russell who's not only an expert at putting out audio fires, but a creative mind and sincere professional who has been a blessing to work with. He's the sound master of Women's Studies, and understands the importance of audio to the cinematic experience. Not only that, his post-audio skills are, to coin a phrase, mad.

On a production full of PC/Avid technicians, Sean is also our lone Mac operator, for which he catches a lot of good natured flak, though sometimes I think he often gets the last laugh.

As the Women's Studies shoot dates roll closer, Sean has been busy prepping his sound recording gear as well as preparing for the eventual post process. I took some time recently and talked with him about his gear, work methods, and philosophy.

# # #

Lonnie:
Sean, what drew you to sound work?

Sean Russell:
I first got into sound at a young age visiting my uncle Steve's studio at the age of eleven. I was into playing drums, and he recorded a small solo to tape for me and right there I was hooked. Some Years Later, I was playing in bands and handing tapes to sound guys every night asking them to tape our show from the board feed. Usually, those tapes sounded horrible, and I thought I could make a better sounding recording. That's how I slowly moved from making music to recording music, and later, my passion for post developed. And here I am.

Lonnie:
A lot of independent filmmakers make the mistake of shortchanging their sound in both recording and post, why do you suppose that is?

Sean:
I've always been taught that video with poor audio might as well be surveillance!

I guess mostly because the conscious focus of any film is the visual. I think most people always think of movies that way - the visual judgment of how they looked may have been more immediate then how they sounded. I would also suppose that with days, weeks, months of shooting a project (and trying to make it look as good as possible) you end up with no time (and budget) to get the film properly posted to a standard we're all used to. Most gear budgets are a lot like casting budgets - you spend the big money on the biggest feature. In gear terms, that might mean a really cool camera. With casting, it might mean spending a chunk of the budget to get a big celebrity. After you've spent a good amount of budget on the camera and associated peripherals, the sound department gets 'what's left over,' meaning, usually the location audio suffers, both in equipment and quality.

In big productions, the location audio recorded isn't as big a deal, with 90% of most audio being replaced after principal photography is over. In post, the usual culprit is the timeline - too many projects hit post past deadline, need the audio yesterday, and don't have time to take time! I've been in this position many times - perhaps more times than not. Proper audio is the difference between a well-shot film with a good plot going over well, or just being well-shot with a good plot. So much of the audio for film is subconscious, and it's amazing what the human ear can perceive as being 'false' or 'fake' if the audio isn't up to par. It's my job to make it seem like there almost wasn't a 'sound guy' or 'post tech' tweaking stuff, as most people are pretty fuzzy about the process anyway.

Lonnie:
A lot of films which could have failed, succeed because of fantastic audio. Lucas's THX-1138 is one that comes to mind.

Sean:
Yes, films which 'could have failed' ...hmmm, there are so many that come to mind... anyone remember Armageddon? Man that was a bad movie, but the soundtrack - whew! The audio in general was top-notch. It's amazing sometimes what the Re-Recording mixers on a movie can do. You mentioned THX-1138 - I would even go so far as the first Star Wars movie. Have you seen cuts without audio? Complete Velveeta. Even the people making the movie thought it would tank - but then they saw it with all of Ben's audio behind it, John's music on it, and - WOW! What a great film! It's the subconscious element of sound to work almost behind the scenes on our senses while our eyes process the film itself. I think good sound makes the film believable - and allows the suspension of disbelief we all must experience to walk out of the film saying to each other 'that was a good movie.'

Lonnie:
I agree wholeheartedly. The aural experience enhances the visual one, and is just as important in making the audience lose themselves in the movie. What are some of the things you like to do to heighten that experience?

Sean:
Secret tips, eh? OK, well, there are general rules, 'see a sound, hear a sound,' that kind of thing. A lot of sounds that we typically hear on movies aren't actually realistic - but most of the time, our brain agrees with the delivery and there's no argument that would give pause. The easiest example in modern cinema is probably gun effects. On TV, when the bad guy cocks his 9-mil, you're usually hearing a 12-gauge shotgun sample. There might be other samples layered with that, but you almost never actually hear the 9-mil itself, it's just not believable. The same can be said for the firings of the guns - many guns in real life make more of a 'pop' sound then a 'boom' sound - but you rarely hear that, because it doesn't build the same way. It's not what we're 'used' to hearing on a movie.

I think it's mostly trying to make sure that the layers that make up an effect or sequence don't stick out independently enough to defeat the stack. It's also about the timing of the sequence, and build up musically coming in or going out.

Lonnie:
Give the gear heads a little taste of what your rig is like, for both production and post.

Sean:
Production audio is mostly Sennheiser shotgun mics feeding Lunatecs recorded 24-bit / 48 kHz to Compact Flash. It's usually a simple chain to get the clearest idea of dialog, location room tones/background loops, and general other sound gathering techniques that might comprise of 15%-20% of the actual audio in the movie.

When you get to Post, everything moves into ProTools and you begin 're-cutting' the film from the ground up - before music and final dialog mixing. Once you get the main beds down, you begin all the obvious effects, and things like the SPL transient designer are a must for making things 'bigger.' Much of the actual effects and editing is handled strictly in the DAW now, with the integration of ProTools and Avid.

Lonnie:
Last question: What does your world sound like?

Sean:
Good question. That's a question I've always wanted to ask those that came before me. I've always been fascinated with the human perception of sound and how people hear differently. I suppose my world sounds not unlike everyone else's. I am forever trying to be more conscientious about what I am perceiving, and how much I'm hearing something as opposed to how much I'm feeling it - or perceiving that I'm feeling it.

Connecting to the undercurrent of emotion that a piece is portraying and supporting that feeling is my main goal. It's my connection with that feeling that allows direction to the technical aspect of my job to come up with something that will enhance rather than distract the point of the story, whether it be in song or film.

Herr Direcktor

It's funny. The whole filmmaking blog thing is an experiment that I kind of just started on a whim. There's never really been much rhyme or reason to it. Rather, whatever I happen to be feeling on a particular week gets spewed up onto Al Gore's interweb.

While I feel it's been successful so far, I'm always just the tiniest bit nervous about it. I'm not sure what people do and don't want to know about this project. Thankfully I have a good friend, Andrew Gifford, who I can bounce ideas off of. Like me, he's in charge of his own company which deals with the arts. In his case, he publishes long fiction. (You can get information about his company, The Santa Fe Writer's Project, at www.sfwp.com. ) So, because I trust Andrew, I asked him, "What are things you're interested in knowing about through the blog?"

He said, "You. Your inspirations, your personal journey. How you got to Women's Studies?"

While it wasn't exactly the answer I was looking for, I realized that I never really took the time to properly introduce myself, though anyone can go to www.lonniemartin.com and read my bio. I get a little weird talking about myself because I'm deathly afraid of coming off like a pretentious prick, or worse, a complete idiot.

Anytime I try to tackle the idea on my own, I end up starting my friggin' memoirs, Therefore, I enlisted the help of Women's Studies co-producer and star, Cindy Marie Martin to ask the questions and keep me in check. She was a broadcast journalism major, so I expect I'll get the full Barbara Walters treatment.

# # #

CINDY:
So, Lonnie, what is a little thing in life that makes you happy?

LONNIE:
Little things are just about all that make me happy: a warm cat in my lap. Seeing an old couple holding hands . . . that kind of thing. While Big things can create strong emotions, pure happiness usually isn't one of them.

CINDY:
What about creatively? Where do you see yourself in five years that would make you happy, artistically?

LONNIE:
Am I still interviewing for the director job? Ultimately, I'd like to be in a place where I can keep making films and exploring the ideas I've brushed the surface of with First Session, Under the Bed, and now Women's Studies. That doesn't mean "rich and famous" in the least. But to be able to make these smaller films, yet keep evolving as a writer and filmmaker, AND have it pay my bills would be nice.

CINDY:
What ideas, specifically, are you itching to explore further? First Session touched on betrayal and murder, Under the Bed, rape and betrayal, and Women's Studies runs the gamut from terrorism to feminism! All related and if I may say, you deal more with the human journey involved in a situation than the situation itself. Are the journeys shown in these three projects connected in any way with one project flowing into the other or are they all their own beast?

LONNIE:
I think the three movies are three different plays on the same theme: the relationship between love and fear, emotional concepts which manifest themselves physically as sex and death. I'm interested in the grey areas where love and fear, sex and death meet. In First Session, I dealt with some very dark consequences of infidelity. Under the Bed was more about how somebody deals psychologically with sexual trauma, or any sexual experience really. Both of those ideas work their way into Women's Studies, which illustrates in a lot of different ways how love can be used against someone to create fear. That's kind of vague, but I don't want to give anything away.

CINDY:
Why the fascination with sex and death? Traumatic childhood? Spurned lover? You seem so well adjusted. And does that mean you yourself have a jaded view of love?

LONNIE:
You mean sit on your couch, doctor, and show you on the My Little Pony where Uncle Charlie touched me when I was seven? Honestly, I have no idea where my fascination comes from. It's just how my mind works. I believe all emotions we feel stem from one of two places, a place of love or a place of fear. Hope, joy, goodwill, optimism; these all come from love. Hate, racism, rage, pain; these are created from fear, usually a fear borne of ignorance. We fear what we don't understand. As I said before, the physical manifestation of fear is death. We fear death because we don't know what comes after. Zen Buddhists believe all we do in this life prepares us for the next one. It's a philosophy built upon preparing to die. So, I guess my obsession with death is borne from a desire to understand it . . . and I believe love is a key to getting to the next life instead of coming back to live out this one.

CINDY:
Sounds remarkably well adjusted actually. Now, there's obviously an underlying vibe of horror to all of your recent work. Why attack these socially relevant and universal themes within the context of the horror genre? (And can we ever expect a nice romantic comedy?)

LONNIE:
Well, horror is good for allegory, because once you've screamed, laughed, thrown your popcorn, and made out with your best girl, you can lean back and ask yourself, "What was I really scared of?" At the same time, you can't get too caught up in your "big ideas." The main point of making a horror film is the great pleasure I take in scaring the hell out of people. As far as a romantic comedy goes, I actually have a soft spot for a good love story. I loved The Notebook. While I'll probably never go the Diane Keaton, Richard Gere, Nora Ephron rom-com route, I'd like to do a love story someday. Hell, Women's Studies in it's own way is a sort of non-traditional, tragic love story.

CINDY:
So, you love to scare people! You're a great host and entertainer: anyone who knows you can attest to that. "Lonnie, the life of the party." So, does the reason you love to scare others have anything to do with the joy you take in being scared yourself? "Entertain others with what best entertains you," if you will? (As your wife, I can vouch that I've seen more horror films since meeting you than in all the 23 years prior.)

LONNIE:
Probably. To me, the joy of being scared by a horror movie is the relief and affirmation of life I experience when the credits roll. It's like, "That was pretty bad, but at least it's make believe. I'm still here." People shouldn't be afraid to embrace the darkness. There's a lot to be learned by trying to see what's hidden in the shadows.

CINDY:
Do you ever just set back and relax? This all sounds so serious and intellectual.

LONNIE:
I'm mister mellow. Just because my mind is always working doesn't mean I'm stressing about the world. I've tried to master the art of letting go, and I think for the most part, I do pretty good.

CINDY:
What's your favorite thing to do to unwind?

LONNIE:
Heh. Watch horror movies.

CINDY:
Well that says it all, doesn't it?

The D.L. on the D.P.

One of the most important members of the Women’s Studies production crew is the Director of Photography, Aaron Shirley. If co-producer Cindy Marie Martin is my right hand, then Aaron is the left one. Last week, thanks to the wonderful technology of the “interweb,” we had the following conversation. Hopefully, people will still take us seriously as filmmakers after reading it.

LONNIE:
So, what are you doing at this very moment?

AARON:
I'm halfway through mastering/QC-ing an eight hour government retirement video. I think I'm going to die.

LONNIE:
Sounds horrifying. Why submit yourself to that?

AARON:
Well, I love horror.

Also, I discovered way back in college that I was a masochist, so I majored in filmmaking. It's an expensive and devastating habit that I've functioned with for over fifteen years. I've thought about trying to make a living doing something else, but then my skills would get rusty. Filmmaking is kind of like a cross between martial arts and heroin. In this area, the two main types of paid filmmaking work you can get are "boring" and "annoying." That's where the masochism comes in. I chose "boring".

The third reason is the satisfaction of helping to teach over 200,000 postal employees how to manage their retirement, at least until the tax laws change again.

LONNIE:
What if the tax laws change before you finish the video?

AARON:
I'm actually laughing as I contemplate the ramifications. In the end, I guess the same thing would happen as it would any time the laws change: We start the whole six month process over again.

LONNIE:
So, Women's Studies (the film): Pro-Life Conspiracy or Anti-Woman Propaganda?

AARON:
All the internet buzz has me thinking it's a tasty mix of both.

LONNIE:
No. See, you're supposed to emphatically defend the film. "It's cinematic genius! A celebration of womankind! Better than Cats!"

AARON:
I think my retirement video will be better than Cats, so Women's Studies should be better than Cats hands down. (Jombie cat? What the heck does that even mean?) Not only do I hate Cats, but right now I hate cats too. When I got home last night, one of mine had gotten into my editing room and ransacked the place. The other five were just staring at me like they knew I was going to freak out. My stuff is everywhere! I can't even go in there. I never want to go in there again. Is this all really going up on the internet?

LONNIE:
Yes. What were you saying about Women’s Studies politics?

AARON:
What I meant to say before was that it plays on the right-wing's fears of what empowering women might lead to, but shows what the left-wing might secretly fantasize about.

LONNIE:
Name your three biggest creative influences, off the top of your head.

AARON:
Hmm, I'm going to divide this between filmmakers and non-filmmakers.

Non-filmmakers:
-Salvador Dali
-Kurt Vonnegut
-Skinny Puppy

Filmmakers:
-Stanley Kubrick
-David Lynch
-Roman Polanski

LONNIE:
Are there going to be melting clocks and a black monolith in Women's Studies?

AARON:
No, but I am happy to report there will be a mansion with a secret, evil cult that is infiltrated by an outsider.

LONNIE:
Are you talking about Eyes Wide Shut, Blue Velvet, or Rosemary's Baby? I guess Repulsion would work too, though there's no cult.

AARON:
The correct answers are: Women's Studies, Eyes Wide Shut, The Ninth Gate, and Mulholland Drive. Curiously, the other movies you mentioned use apartments, not mansions. That brings me to an interesting theory about Roman Polanski's films. Almost all of them either have apartments or a mansion. I think Oliver Twist is his first film to have both. I can only think of two of his films that didn't have either: Knife in the Water (small sailboat) and Death and the Maiden (country bungalow).

LONNIE:
You know, I was going to mention The Ninth Gate instead of Rosemary's Baby, but was ashamed to admit I actually sat through the whole movie.

AARON:
The Ninth Gate was a misunderstood masterpiece. I actually liked it better than The Pianist. (I’m not saying it was a better film, just more “Polanski-ish.”) As a side note, how's this for my film geek cred: I saw The Pianist opening night with $750 worth of Polish zlatys in my pocket. Pirates! was misunderstood too. Now, the most pure 'Polanski' film is The Tenant. It makes Repulsion look like a first year student film. Check it out if you haven't.

LONNIE:
You realize we're showing the world what huge movie geeks we are, right?

AARON:
I thought that was the point.

LONNIE
So, what you're saying is no one should be surprised when Women's Studies looks like a Polanski film?

AARON:
Polanski changes color and light drastically from film to film, but one of his signature “looks” is his use of pan and tilt (from a tripod) to emulate the movement of the human eye across a scene. I'm currently working on a small crane that will emulate the movement of a human walking around a scene. (Most cranes use arcing movement which is not how humans move.) At the same time, the operator still has full tripod-like pan and tilt at the end of the crane for the eye-like movement. Psychologically, the viewer should feel like they're standing/walking right there in the room.

LONNIE:
Speaking of lighting, can you talk briefly about a few of your ideas for Women's Studies?

AARON:
Glad you asked. I have a couple of ideas in mind, but my current favorite is a concept I've been developing for a year or so. I've been studying amateur digital portrait photography on personal profile web sites. There's a lot of bad stuff out there but when it's good, it's fascinating, because it's very original and makes personal images for each person.

LONNIE
A MySpace lighting design? Surely, you must be joking.

AARON:
I never joke, and don't call me "Surely.” (It's Shirley.)

LONNIE:
I knew I picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue.