It is currently Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:34 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 187 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am
More importantly I thought 40 minutes of the film were completely edited? I would hope that would be the template for the tone of this.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:54 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
That's what I heard too. Think about all the great "lost albums" that were only partially sequenced, like Big Star's third or Jimi Hendrix's First Rays of the New Rising Sun - some of the work was done but you still have endless arguments on what would've been the final sequence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:19 pm 

Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:31 am
That 40 minute rough cut/pitch reel is what Gary Graves showed to would-be completion investors like George Lucas and Clint Eastwood (who really watched it just to study John Huston for White Hunter, Black Heart). It's apparently out on some torrents now. :-$

I couldn't be happier with Netflix making a documentary to complement this. It's the best way to appease
purists who will only see this film as a facsimile of what could have been. Fingers crossed a 35mm print is
shown for general audiences a la Okja (which garnered some laughs at the New Beverly when Netflix's logo appeared).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:22 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
Drucker wrote:
More importantly I thought 40 minutes of the film were completely edited? I would hope that would be the template for the tone of this.

Given Welles' working methods, saying 40 minutes of the film were "completely edited" would not be the best term to use. Welles would begin editing individual scenes out of sequential order according to his interest and the availability of footage; some of these scenes would be very tightly-edited (the oft-seen footage of Jake Hannaford's arrival at his birthday party is cut, some might say "over-cut", to an inch of its life) while other scenes would be loosely-assembled with multiple takes of the same line or alternate angles of the same action. When Welles began the final assembly of one of his features, combining all of these scenes in sequential order, the early editing of the individual scenes could be changed dramatically to work better within the context of the whole film. Not only would Welles tighten up a loose assembly, but he might significantly shorten sequences he had "locked-in" a year or two earlier, re-locate the footage to some other place in the film than he had originally intended, or discard the footage altogether. Actually, this approach is pretty standard for most filmmakers going from a rough assembly, or work-print, to a fine edit.

The 40 minutes that Welles edited himself should really be seen as a collection of rough cuts that probably would have been altered in some way had Welles the opportunity to get close to a fine edit. While Welles obviously intended a frenetic approach to the cutting (unmistakably present in the work-print edits), the edited footage he left behind should not be taken as gospel. As it turned out, most of the 40 minutes that Welles cut assembles shots for the "movie-within-the-movie" which, arguably, should not be the focus of the story (this has been a source of contention for years - co-screenwriter Oja Kodar believes the footage of the film the Hannaford character is trying to finish should take up 50% of the running time of The Other Side of the Wind while the existing drafts of the screenplay note the Hannaford film footage as appearing only sporadically).

Equally important, Welles never had access to all of the footage he shot for The Other Side of the Wind; the current producers do. While it might sound heretical for a Welles fan to say this, a fresh attempt to create a feature out of this footage without the obligation to edit around the chunks of material that Welles cut might be the best approach.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:00 pm
Although it still feels absolutely unreal, it appears that a [rough?] cut of the film has screened for the first time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:31 pm 

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:06 am
Honestly, I find this to be far too soon to be confident in what they've done. Given the amount of footage, doing the best possible job by Cannes felt like a stretch--this feels like a rush job more concerned with completion than anything else.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:41 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am
albucat wrote:
Honestly, I find this to be far too soon to be confident in what they've done. Given the amount of footage, doing the best possible job by Cannes felt like a stretch--this feels like a rush job more concerned with completion than anything else.
if you’re working mostly from Welles circle takes it isn’t that long to pull together an assembly cut simply because films shoot so little footage especially compared to contemporary filmmaking. Computers are much faster at making all your footage available than cutting on film like Welles did.

If you’re second guessing Welles and trying every take regardless it will take longer. Basically it depends on the script supervisor and Welles instructions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
This was just a screening for "friends and family" after four (or possibly more) months of active post-production. I think it's unfair to pre-judge the competency of the edit until the public sees a finished version. Understandably, everything on this project has taken so long (four years of pre-production, six years of shooting, forty years of legal entanglements) that this active post-production phase seems to have, comparatively, whisked by.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:49 pm 

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:06 am
Let's go only from what the producer has said: There are "over 1000 rolls of 16mm and 35mm film," including "over 10,000 shots." Added to this, there are audio issues, considering that "In many cases, the shots are missing slates, so the sound has to be hand-synched." All of this makes for, "way more material than anyone thought."

Films back then may have shot less footage, but we're not talking about a hollywood picture here. "Second guessing Welles" - how is that even possible? We don't have his cut to second guess. So far as we're aware, Welles left no instructions for how to complete things, rather he was simply done shooting and knew that he could put things together himself. His working methods precluded the type of memo that might editing easier--remember, he LOVED editing and wanted to work on that himself. If they already knew which takes to use etc. then they wouldn't have scanned all 1000 rolls into 4k, they would've just taken what was needed.

Assuming that this film has more in common with F for Fake than his earlier pictures, judging from both the period of production and the footage we've seen of it thus far at the AFI ceremony, we're talking about an immense undertaking. Computers are much faster, but they're not magic--I used to work as an editor for television, I have pretty good knowledge of how long these things take. A lot of it depends on how much of a crap you give about a project. If they have a really solid rough cut, then working on fine tuning from now until Cannes makes sense. But going through that much material to find the best takes is a lengthy pain in the ass.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:09 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
The Wellesnet article has been updated to note that "editing began less than three months ago" (which may be accurate or simply acknowledges the date when the producers announced that editing had begun). The article also includes this new paragraph:

One of the audience members was enthusiastic to Wellesnet about the two-hour movie, but tight-lipped on details. What was shown at the "friends & family screening" was far more advanced than a rough cut, but it was not a finished film.

Take that as you may. There will, undoubtedly, be plenty who will complain about the end results (hell, I might be one of them), but after waiting forty years to see the film (first read about it as an "in-progress feature" in 1978), I'm just happy the thing is close to being released and that some of the participants who worked on it are still alive to see it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am
albucat wrote:
So far as we're aware, Welles left no instructions for how to complete things, rather he was simply done shooting and knew that he could put things together himself.


A script supervisor would have the script marked up as shooting happens including the on-the-set preference (circle takes), creating an assembly from the script supervisor's script is where everyone starts edit from and they'd still have that resource. They might note have a touch of evil memo, but they have standard production documentation. Even lab orders are useful resources if you're lacking other information.

10,000 shots is not very much. the audio is an issue, but that is why films have assistant editors, the assistants probably had a huge amount of the syncing done before an editor arrived, simply because paying an editor to sit around doing nothing while waiting on the assistants to do their jobs is foolish. By the time an editor arrived, a lot of these problems would have been solved already.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:43 pm 

Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:52 pm
The negative arrived in Los Angeles in March and it was 4K scanned, sorted, logged and studied over a period of several months. The actual editing began sometime in October. Bob Murawski, a pretty talented and well-regarded editor, likely had 12 weeks or more to put together a cut suitable for screening. It's not a rush job, especially since there are Welles edited scenes and notes to use as a guide. Cannes (if that is where it debuts) is still four months away, so there is plenty of time to have a polished edit ready for the premiere.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 187 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: WJones


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection