 |
| A Rogue in Londinium |
The folks who are the brains behind A Rogue in Londinium have been in hibernation for these four months or so. But it is not because they are in need of rest, although I wouldn’t blame them. It is because they have been working silently and diligently on re-editing, re-sound designing, re-mixing and figuring out a way to succinctly tell the story in the least amount of time.
After having spent time and money in festival fees, festivals and talk back screenings, Elizabeth, the director, decided that she needed to go back in and almost rewrite the entire film based on audience reaction and review. I asked her about this process that a lot of filmmakers employ in order to perfect and finish a project ripe for the market.
“There has to be a synthesis of the filmmaker’s vision and the audience’s emotional response to that vision. The common denominators are the clues, the common notes and opinions that spread across many demographics. In that way an astute filmmaker and editor can either cut scenes wholesale, shift scenes, or trim the beginnings and ends of important scenes to get to the heart of the character’s intentions. Every frame has to move the story forward.”
True enough. Although I’ve only seen the film once thus far last October, I was certainly floored and impressed by the careful unfolding of the story. The one thing I did observe was that many people in the audience with the same reaction I had, felt like 10 to 15 minutes could be cut and the end tightened. It is a tough situation for anyone working on their own creation. Because the film has such high production quality with lush sets, gorgeous costumes and brilliant lighting mirroring the impressionist period and the darkness of Victorian London, it is like deciding which paintings to keep in your art collection. I asked Elizabeth about this.
“I was invited by a friend of mine who teaches a film class at one of the local colleges. I brought the film in and screened it before about 25 students from several different backgrounds and cultures. To be honest, I thought I was walking into the lion’s den, but my friend assured me that the worst that could happen is that students would get bored and walk out. At that time the film ran long, about 2 hours and 24 minutes. But to my surprise only 2 people left about 15 minutes before it ended because they had to catch a train. That’s not to say there weren’t areas where the class was texting or surfing on their smart phones. But when the room went really quiet because they were engaged in the story or when people reacted verbally to the dramatic twists and turns, I knew what to keep and what to cut. Afterwards about a dozen people asked when it would be released and where could they see it or buy it?”
 |
| Schindler's List |
Editing is an art unto itself. It is about subtraction. Directing is about addition. So the two disciplines work against each other and yet provide a finely distilled finished product…like good whiskey or a fine wine. Most directors work with good editors time and again. It is a dance—a marriage, and the two compliment each other well. Thelma Schoonmaker has worked on almost every Scorsese film, winning three academy awards for her work on Raging Bull, The Aviator and The Departed. Michael Kahn has a thirty year working relationship with Steven Spielberg winning three academy awards for his work on Schindler’s List, Raider’s of the Lost Ark and Saving Private Ryan. Walter Murch who has worked consistently with Francis Ford Coppola on The Conversation, Apocalypse Now and The Godfather(s) says that when he is editing he stands up like a conductor because it is active. However, when he is creating he lies down so that his brain views the tasks in a very different way. When the director of a film is also the editor that person can find themselves working against everything they’ve just invested years of money, time and energy creating. Working alone is like performing in a vacuum. And so objectivity comes from the outside. I asked Elizabeth how she was able to come to terms with cutting out precious parts of her film.
“Time and distance are invaluable. I am independent…to the point of still being a guerilla filmmaker in a way. I have one thing that a lot of people don’t in this business and that is time. Since we are self-producing and privately financed I answer only to my partner and myself. There is no deadline, timeline or outside financiers breathing down my neck. That’s not to say I want to spend years on this. But there is no insane urgency to get the product finished and out into the market. I view these works in the very long-term. In today’s film world people must turn over a product and hit the market as quickly as possible in order to recoup the investment.” She tells me.
 |
| Dana Bennison and Whitney Hamilton |
“I understand the value and urgency of working in that environment and I can certainly perform under those conditions but I find with personal projects that time is more valuable to ensure a truly finished product. Case in point: Our first feature, My Brother’s War, did the festival circuit, was picked up and distributed and did quite well. It made its money back. And one day I watched it and I could see where the rhythm of the film was off. I could clearly understand the notes people had given me during the editing process a few years back. But I was younger and it was my first feature and I felt strongly about leaving some of those scenes in at the time. In about two days I cut out sixteen minutes of the film. Upon viewing it again I could see how quickly it moved AND how it supported the work of the actors. It felt like a 70 minute feature and in reality it is now at a 99 min. runtime. The trick with editing is to make you forget time. As a result My Brother’s War is a selection at the New Hope Film Festival this year in July.” www.mybrotherswar.com
“And so how did that effect your approach to Londinium?” I asked.
“I really listened and observed people in the test screenings. I had private screenings with other filmmakers. And I took long breaks --- weeks at a time and did something else creative to give my brain a break so that I could return more objectively and without emotional attachment to the directing aspects of the film. In about a week I was able to cut Londinium down to a runtime of 2 hours and 7 minutes. My goal is to get it refined enough for a 120 minute runtime.”
So I asked if anyone has seen the current shorter version hinting that I’d like to see it myself.
 |
| Doctor Zhivago |
“I screened it down south to a new audience that remained completely compelled. By the end of the exhibition people asked when it was going to be released. So it is working. A few more cuts and I believe it will be ready. I take solace in knowing that Stanley Kubrick took three years to finish editing one of his films. I was talking with friends the other day and the director David Lean and Doctor Zhivago came up in conversation. Mr. Lean was adamant about leaving in some of those quiet scenes between Omar Sharif and Julie Christie. It did not do well during the test screenings. People didn’t respond. Producers and studio execs were frustrated. And so Mr. Lean watched it again after some time went by and realized what he had done wrong. So with his editor, Norman Savage, he trimmed up those long looks and pregnant pauses and the film became the eight highest grossing film of all time here in the states. It also garnered five academy award wins with a best editing nomination for Mr. Savage.”
“So the big question is this: Why edit your own film?” I ask.
“John Sayles has been a big influence on me and he edits his films. There is also the issue of budgetary constraints. I look forward to the next project when I will have a budget to work with an editor.”
“What’s the next project?” I ask.
“Oh, I’m not sure I can say since it is so early in the process.” She demurs. “But it involves reenactors.”
Huzzah!
The re-edited version of My Brother’s War is available for digital rental on Amazon ($2.99).
Posts
