Cutting interviews

[Peter Copestake]

In a film submitted to BIAFF 2008 I am, like the judges!!, not quite satisfied with the way I cut an interview which was too long for 'a general audience' tho' we found it all interesting.
It had to be cut in ,perhaps,eight places so
1. I used it as voiceover
2. Used Zoom on Premier
3. Used a quick dissolve +/- zoom +/- moving face sideways to reduce the difference between the two sections.

TV seem to use quick dissolves or jump cuts

The judges found the dissolves 'distracting'. By the way they (the dissolves, not the judges) look worse on DVD than tape - any comments on that?

What do people find is the best way of dealing with this problem? How long a dissolve? please don't say "If I were you I wouldn't start from here" because I did and have to live with the consequences. I felt very privileged to interview this very old monk and didn't feel I could re-position him.

Thanks in advance,

Peter C.

[stingman]

No time to reply at the minute but try to film alot of cut-away shots. Like Close-up of eyes and close-ups of peoples hands and fingers moving. Also a long shot of you doing the interview, so as not to see the lips moving etc.

Just a quickie

Stingman

[billyfromConsett]

If you can, do an interview with a cameraman. Let him make sure the person interviewed is framed right. I made that mistake in one of my Biaff efforts- where the person was looking towards the edge of the shot. And my fix of repositioning the guy in a box to the other side, wasn't appreciated (or shared as to why I did this) by the judges.

Is your movie on youtube by any chance?

[Dave Watterson]

As one of our senior film makers, Peter, I doubt there is much any of us could suggest that you have not thought of yourself.

Ian has a good point about "noddies" as the tv trade calls them: shots of the interviewer just nodding, smiling, looking interested or quizzical etc. These can be shot at any time so long as the background looks similar and then used as cutaways to bridge edits.

I have not seen your film, but remember a tv show decades ago about Marshall McLuhan the communications theorist. At that time he was suggesting that manipulation of events - like cuts in an interview - should be signalled to the viewer by just such rapid cross-fades and so on. To the ones you list I would add going out of and into focus as a visual punctuation mark - especially if the talk is on deep, philosophical issues.

Depending on the topic you may be able to insert cutaways of objects related to what is being said. A picture of an old Bible being opened ... a fountain pen being laid down on the desk ... a painting ... a pair of sandals ... a Rosary ... a sunrise ... a fallen leaf ...

If that is all that bothered the judges it should not have made a significant difference to the rating they gave.

But as a problem with interviews it is one most of us have had to face now and then.

Dave

[Peter Copestake]

Thanks Ian and Billy. I know how I should have done the original but can't redo it; he died some years back. Perhaps I'll investigate Youtube sometime, but I really need comments about which way of avoiding jump cuts works best with the material I have, tho' I realise you'd be able to give better advice if you could see the film.

[stingman]

If you have the master footage, Peter, or the editing workings still, could you re-edit it?

You could add the pen shots, you nodding close-up of you miming some of your speech etc. It can be still salvagable. A cross on a table with the sun shineing down on it.

It is hard when you're doing an interview to remember everything. It is this that shows in the final marking of a film. Sometimes you may lose points for NOT having something in your film!

Stingman

[Peter Copestake]

You flatter me, Dave. My trouble may be lack of imagination. Ian has it right; I wouldn't have thought of adding things that weren't there! I'll think hard about this, but may reedit with cuts instead of dissolves; I probably should have tried this before writing in. I have done this once in one interview (I never include myself) a cut to a zoomed-in-on-Premier and even though it's in the middle of a sentence it looks OK - gives emphasis to what is being said)
Perhaps I was unnerved by the circumstances. The room was bare. I put a lapel mic on the monk but forgot to switch to external mic so it's the camera mic that's used. The judges didn't comment adversely on the sound, but the sun came out and whitened the side of his face so that gave them something else to complain about. I'm not complaining - I should have noticed after I'd set the exposure on his face. (He was wearing a white cassock.) I think if there had been anything except the three of us in the room I might have thought of other shots.
A crucifix (with Christ on it as he was RC) might work though I think it would be a distraction. My non-film maker daughter thinks it's fine as it is but I want to try other competitions with this one and I do really like to please judges !!!.
Thanks all again.

[stingman]

A crucifix (with Christ on it as he was RC) might work though I think it would be a distraction. My non-film maker daughter thinks it's fine as it is but I want to try other competitions with this one and I do really like to please judges !!!.
Thanks all again.

I`m a one to talk but i`m ALWAYS forgetting to do stuff. Your not alone Peter. I would re-edit it. If the Monk quote scripture, then film the bible being opened to that book in the Bible. A crucifix would work in my opinion. Lots of insert-edit shots is a must when filming. They can get you out of alot of trouble, and also they can be used to break up sentences and to make them shorter.

Let us know how you get on Peter. Good luck.........

Be good all.....

Stingman