So I'm working on a doc.

Evan S

Evan S

Veteran
and the person who shot the footage, put themselves in the frame while interviewing the subject. I'm editing, he tells me he wants to have it like an interview. But he didn't shoot a reverse angle of himself asking the questions. None of the footage is slated. He told me that "we don't need to slate, I've never done it in the decades I've worked." and he's also said that he doesn't need a reverse shot of him asking the questions and that I must be a film student because that's documentary 101, and I must have never shot a doc before. because I don't need coverage of him showing his face asking the question. and the audience isn't dense, and they don't need to see footage of him asking the question, they can just assume who he is. and if need be "we'll use a VO to explain it" or "we'll fix it all in post, we have so much footage" we have so much footage what? It doesn't have to be shot correctly. He gave me 3 angles of the same interview. He interupts the interviewer with questions while they're talking.
he tells me he doesn't have to lock down the cameras because it's boring for a documentary. He doesn't want a bunch of talking heads. He wants cameras to zoom in and out while subjects are talking.

gooddd. How do I walk away from something I've invested a year in?
 
Do you really want your name attached to it? Sounds like it wasn't thought out too carefully before shooting.
 
How do you NOT walk away? It's one thing to have "creative differences". It's another thing to have someone tell you you don't know what you're doing.
 
Sad Max said:
Seriously, I charge extra, to be told that I don't know what I'm doing...
Click to expand...

service rates:

...
...
...
extra option: 500$+tax for unlimited bashing and trashing during 3 hours.

that would be awesome!
 
Last edited:
Perhaps it's worth asking the subject if you could re-shoot the interview. It's possible he wasn't pleased with everything on his side. The fact that you've invested a year in this makes it seem worthwhile, despite your description of the shooter's behavior. Can you ditch him?
 
If you can't stomach it, I think you should just walk away. If asked why, just cite "Creative differences... I'm creative and he's 'different'..." :)
 
Call me crazy but I really dont think there is much of an issue here.
He wants to do something outside the box and not a boring traditional talking head.

Give him what he wants.

As far as slating, Ive done 1000's of interviews and i can say NONE of them have ever been slated. Audio transcriptions done after the fact? sure.. but actual slating on location? never.

As far as not seeing him on camera asking the questions.. while I agree with you
that its a much better way of doing things... Last year I worked with lets just say..
a guy who won an academy award for a documentary..
he talked all over the interview and we never had a camera pointing in his direction.
I had him mic'ed and I know they used his audio in with the "on camera" talent.
without ever seeing him.

Point being is..while its not traditional..
give him what he wants. Cut it in a way that it works..
use the VO like he said...or come up with something else to make it work.

Obviously just my opinion.
 
Rippie said:
Last year I worked with lets just say..
a guy who won an academy award for a documentary..
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that this guy is of that caliber. He kinda sounds like a condescending pr*ck. I don't care how low you are on the totem pole, no one deserves to be verbally pooped on.
 
Not slating is not unusual at all for a documentary, as there is no script or scenes to keep track of. Usually the person doing the interview just slates their name. As for a reverse shot, it's kind of odd to not have one if he is in the interviewee's shot. I actually agree with Ripple. Documentaries don't have rigid formats to adhere to and can be put together in a variety of different ways. If the interviews are compelling it doesn't matter how it was shot, it will be interesting. Even if you don't have a cutaway shot, I've seen people do jump cuts in the middle of interviews, or cuts to black (here's an example from Errol Morris). Just do whatever works. If the subject matter is lousy, that's another matter, as nothing can be done about a bad interview....Oh, and if you have three angles of the same interview that's often 2 more than I've usually gotten, so consider yourself lucky.
 
Last edited:
Rick Meyer said:
That doesn't mean that this guy is of that caliber. He kinda sounds like a condescending pr*ck. I don't care how low you are on the totem pole, no one deserves to be verbally pooped on.
Click to expand...

but..
2 things.. first off the guy is kinda right when he questioned about the slate thing
and a few other things.
2nd, we didnt hear the other guys side of the story.

I'm not ragging on anyone I just personally don't think that its ridiculous for a client to ask for something out of the norm, and you do your best to deliver.

I agree though, technical issues aside if the client is truly treating this person
as "doo doo" then you have to know when to fire a client.
 
Batutta said:
Not slating is not unusual at all for a documentary, as there is no script or scenes to keep track of. Usually the person doing the interview just slates their name. As for a reverse shot, it's kind of odd to not have one if he is in the interviewee's shot. I actually agree with Ripple. Documentaries don't have rigid formats to adhere to and can be put together in a variety of different ways. If the interviews are compelling it doesn't matter how it was shot, it will be interesting. Even if you don't have a cutaway shot, I've seen people do jump cuts in the middle of interviews, or cuts to black (here's an example from Errol Morris). Just do whatever works. If the subject matter is lousy, that's another matter, as nothing can be done about a bad interview....Oh, and if you have three angles of the same interview that's often 2 more than I've usually gotten, so consider yourself lucky.
Click to expand...

Yeah, all the things he's asking for creatively are pretty common. However, the interviewer is not typically breaking into the frame during the taking of the interview shot(s). That is a composition error and we do our best to frame the interviewer out. The producer / director will usually get right up against one side of the lens or the other to accomplish the desired eyelines.

You'll know if they were working in a typical format if the interviewer was careful to remind the subject to rephrase the question into the answers. "What color is the sky?" becomes "The sky is blue." This is done to eliminate that stale 60 Minutes news style where you see the reaction shots of the interviewer.

For documentary interview framing, I've been asked to do completely static shots - where I literally can sit off to the side and leave the camera running. Less often, a director will want you to work variable lens and framing with little or no apparent regard for how the interview will cut. I have been surprised at the end-result a director can get from this seemingly fast-and-loose style.

Documentary films follow few hard and fast rules from a style standpoint and you'll really have to be a flexible technician to work to someone else's vision. I highly recommend sticking with it if it makes sense from the business side.
 
Batutta said:
Looking back at Evan's post, not having a slate mark when you have three camera angles to sync would be a pain...but you can use this program that will sync them for you provided all three angles have audio--

http://www.singularsoftware.com/pluraleyes.html
Click to expand...

True I guess we are just assuming about a lot of things here.
Not knowing how or more importantly why things were done a certain way.

Was there a sound guy involved running sound to both cameras (or all 3)?
If so that should be plenty of info to sync.
I just did that last Friday. Only thing I add in those situations is I hit a little
pop of tone when I can, I figure the editor can find that .5 second waveform
quicker than having to zoom in to match dialog waveforms.

Now of course if these 3 cameras had camera mic on and 1 non timecode
recorder was being used separately and no slate and the cameras
were starting and stopping all over the place thats an entire different story
but once again assuming rather than knowing facts.

Usually I don't get involved in threads like this I just personally found
it odd that everyone had a "get out now" attitude when in the very limited
info I just dont see the client asking to move mountains.
 
Erik Olson said:
Yeah, all the things he's asking for creatively are pretty common. However, the interviewer is not typically breaking into the frame during the taking of the interview shot(s).
Click to expand...

Once again "assuming"..
if there were 3 camera angles they ALL cant be the back of the interviewers head
breaking into frame could they?
 
Well, I'm not so much assuming as I am speaking from my own experience.

Three simultaneous taking positions isn't common for interviews, but two was relatively standard in unscripted and documentary formats until more recently. Most producers have finally realized the off-angle profile shots aren't complimentary at all - in fact they're usually not flattering and look shoehorned-in at best. Those fishing-expedition angles came mostly from people who aren't creative enough to find real, disparate b-roll coverage shots or ones who subscribe to the notion that humans can only watch one unbroken shot for nine seconds before they change the channel. Those shots are lamentable and I'm glad less producers are asking for them. My soul dies a little when I have to frame one.
 
I think something difficult for editors to deal with when they first start cutting documentaries is how much more responsible you become for telling the story. On the few I've done, with reputable people, as well as reality shows, I was the one responsible for culling down and shaping the footage into a narrative. That was fun for me as I'm also a writer, but for folks used to just cutting from a script it can be a lot to handle...I laugh whenever I hear reality show 'writers' threatening to organize because I know they are more glorified loggers than writers. The show editors have more of a claim to authorship.
 
The thing is that, the guy has got no reason to act that way. If he trusts me to edit, then let me do my job, and come back with something. I have reasons for not doing things. It's more of a history channel style doc, than a morgan spurlock/michael moore doc. and we don't need an interviewers head in the shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top