TAG | production
As continued from The New Deal: the Prologue…
The thing is, is that certain practical constraints changed the nature of our project, Life’s Waltz, and therefore they changed our schedule. Originally we thought the whole thing wouldn’t take more than 2 or 3 months. By now we’ve had a drastic reality check. Among the practical things that changed the nature of the project were the quality and type of footage we were getting, the realization of how long it takes to film enough to do justice to the subject matter, business matters like record-keeping, minutes, accounting, and insurance, and other random things that came up that we didn’t know we’d have to do or didn’t expect to do in the original framework for the project. This all compelled us to keep shooting and not edit at the same time. So after the couple of months that we shot, we ended up with almost 200 hours of footage and not having edited any of it. Then came some legal, business, and technical issues that delayed our beginning editing, which all took time to work on and resolve. Additionally, family members visited and we took some brief and uncoordinated vacations since real life was still going on, and meanwhile we continued to follow up on a few stories that had emerged by shooting, and we also went to film a few special events, such as Valentines Day. We would’ve been remiss had we not filmed the election of the elected Valentines King and Queen.
See, we had originally only even formed an LLC for the litigation protection. That’s it. We almost tried doing this film without even forming a company. We were just in it for the experience, after all. But once we decided to form an LLC for the legal safety, we realized unwittingly that it opened some unexpected doors. First off, in dealing with the nation’s largest senior services provider at one of whose community we’re shooting Life’s Waltz, they definitely aren’t going to enter into any agreements with two random people who aren’t even behind a company. The LLC was equivalent to legitimacy and credibility, more or less. Though obviously we still couldn’t walk in with clown suits on. It made it official. Though we hadn’t thought about it, they required us to have insurance if we were going to be there, and having the company helped with that as well. But both of these things, most importantly to this story, started changing the nature of the project without us really thinking about it. It was becoming more business-y and by-the-books. Soon after forming the company, we thought we’d better have image and location releases/agreements for everyone appearing in the documentary. This led to a ton of time and work drafting the appropriate agreements (having no legal background and getting free consultation by BDD’s Legal Services *wink wink*) to turn out agreements that even changed as we kept shooting. Also, we showed up to the meeting to sign our “Location Release” with TVND, they took one look at it and their lawyers went and drafted a real one. So much for that effort – but it’s come in handy for shooting off-location. At any rate, the picture I’m trying to paint is that things started, not by design, taking a very official, by-the-books form. And this was certain to change the nature of the project.
We realized also, after talking to a number of professional, successful documentary filmmakers, and also after seeing the quality of footage we were getting–truly outstanding–that the process would probably take much longer than we expected as well. Remember, we originally though the whole thing from beginning to end would take 2 or 3 months, and then we’d part ways. Guess again!
So we started drafting a business plan. We started talking with people about their approaches to sales and distribution. We spent a few weeks figuring out how to best manage our footage in the editing room; because we filmed with Panasonic’s brand new HMC-150, the footage poses a number of technical challenges to be able to edit it. Ultimately, we had to figure out a way and get the correct hardware to convert all of the footage twice over into a severely degraded, much smaller storage requirement format (this is called “downrezzing”, in other words “downgrading the resolution”) to keep potentially immense storage costs down, and then not to mention the amount of time and coordination it took to convert all of the footage twice over and back it all up onto three separate external drives in addition to what now are the two computers that we have to edit on. But the good news is, our process is correct and will work solidly and provide a lot of stability. We now have two computers to edit on, as well, so that we will both be working on different selected characters up until the rough assembly of the film.
We finally started editing, well… Ashley did. I was still converting footage and taking care of a lot of other business stuff, such as getting all of our books in order and preparing taxes for the first time in my life. What a learning experience. Plus, we came up with some more consolidated and streamlined approaches to the marketing campaign, namely focusing on Old Stories, the Sam Show, and the Ceil series (we haven’t named it yet because we haven’t done an “episode” yet). But during this time period, things were very crazy, and we re-prioritized what we were doing, thus less frequent blog posting.
Now, we’re running full steam. We’re both editing full time. All taxes and business matters are sorted and settled. Old Stories are in the pipeline. And mostly importantly, as we were advised by my friend Daniel who’s consulted us so much on this project, we’re focusing on the product, because without that we’ve got nothing else.
To do this, we’ve sat down for a few hours (and will continue to keep the dialogue open and dynamic) to hammer out a few basic guiding principles for how we edit so answer the questions of what are we doing and why, all in order to create the best film possible. As a practical matter, since we’re editing on separate computers and we need to remain coordinated and collaborative, we sat down to figure out to what extent we should be creating rough assemblies of each scenes, which type of scenes we should be doing rough assemblies of, and what the timeline/schedule of getting things done, who will do what work, and what our goals are.
I’ll put it very concretely in the next blog post, detailing our schedule, timeline, goals, character arcs and conflicts that we’ll focus on, what our process will be for doing the full rough assembly, and much, much more.
To be continued again…
A professional photographer (read: high school student) came by recently at my behest and snapped a few hundred production stills: snapshots of us at work in the filming process. Thought y’all would enjoy a few of them!
Suffice it to say, things can tend to go over Dorothy’s head!
Jared gives a production status update for Life’s Waltz as we cap off week 8 of filming. In less than a week we’ll be done shooting principal photography. We’re stoked to begin editing!
2
Realizations As We Approach Month 2 of Production
Comments | Posted by Ashley Karitis in Project Updates
In light of some recent conversations Jared and I have had, we thought it might be interesting to share with you some of our “realizations” we have had as we approach our second month of filming.
In every proposal or verbal description we’ve given friends, family, and industry contacts of Life’s Waltz, we have almost always included the clause that this film would be about “active seniors” and their lifestyles as they take place in a retirement community. In reviewing our footage, Jared and I noticed that even when our seniors have apparently “active” schedules, it’s difficult to consider the majority of these activities as “active.” That is, at least, in the sense in which we originally thought of it when we embarked upon the making of this film. After some initial panic and much discussion that followed, though, we’ve come to understand that it all simply depends on what it really means to be an active senior, and we may have to re-evaluate our own definition. Ah, unforeseen challenges that arise! But we believe that good things will come from challenges like these, so let me explain our revelations.
For example, if Sally Jones has a bridge game, happy hour, and bingo all in one day, it is technically a busy day, but all of those activities have have her seated and without very much physical movement. Or, if Bob has poker, a luncheon, and a movie night, he is still sitting there–stationary, immobilized, and without physical activity.
Admittedly, I have become a bit disappointed and even frustrated by this realization. I know there are 90 year olds skydiving! I just know it!
This realization doesn’t reflect on the characters themselves and whether their lives are interesting or not–in fact we find out through our initial conversations and interviews whether or not these these people are fascinating, diverse, wise, hilarious, dramatic, etc. But no matter how much they tell us, we probably won’t be able to make Life’s Waltz a compelling documentary unless we can show their lifestyles (which refers to the longstanding struggle in filmmaking of showing vs. telling). Nobody wants to watch a bunch of talking heads for 90 minutes! Film being a visual medium, meaning is best expressed through the visual, the kinetic, the dynamic.
We were quite conflicted over this–how do we continue production about a group of active seniors if they are not really all that active?
So, we asked our seniors for their definition of what exactly an “active senior” is…
Their answers, consistent with each other, weren’t necessarily surprising in the end–I guess we just hadn’t considered their response. We just had other expectations about what it means to be active. Most responded something along these lines: At the ripe old age of 89 you can expect that your knees may deteriorate or your back will hurt or you won’t be able to walk as fast or jump as high as you once did. The loss of mobility or physical ability is something that can only be expected, and ultimately, accepted (wow I love rhyming). But nonetheless they consider themselves active, and that’s because they’re active in a way we hadn’t considered much: mentally active.
Those who still are “with it,” or “sharp as a tack” consider themselves to be “active seniors.” They know each day’s schedule, they know what they want, and aside from the chronic or acute ailments that come with being 8 or 9 decades old, they can pretty much run their own lives. In fact, the same reason why so many of the seniors we’re working with feel just as young as they always have–like a “25-year-old stuck in the body of a 77-year old”, to quote a man in the previous, short version of Life’s Waltz–is the same reason why mental acuity is so important and there are activities at TVN like “Brain Aerobics”: staying healthy and active in the golden years is primarily about staying mentally healthy and mentally active. That’s where the feeling of youth lies.
As Dorothy would say, “How ’bout that?”
How ’bout this: since I’ve come to understand that mental ability is a priority for a lot of our characters, Jared and I have discussed this renewed definition of “active seniors” and how it might affect our approach to shooting and editing.
If anything, our footage has been conservatively shot keeping in accordance with the standard way of covering the action (a.k.a. “coverage“) so we can cut a scene in the editing room. When this whole issue of “active seniors” came about, we suddenly posed the questions, “If the subjects–the content, everything in front of the camera–are static, will the footage, and ultimately, the film feel static too?” and therefore “Should we be compensating for the physical stagnation of the content by shooting the film in a way (manipulating the style of cinematography) that would introduce a sense of movement and energy?” In other words, should we be doing quick zooms (punches in), tracking shots (tracing the movement or form of something), using Dutch angles (tilted angles), or anything else to give the footage more “energy”?
Here’s our debate:
The Pro of ramping up more stylized camera work: the footage would probably have more energy and would give the film a more distinct tone that stems from the technique, but not necessarily the content.
The Con of ramping up more stylized camera work: viewers would probably be more aware that there is a force behind the making of the story, or that the film is self-reflexive which might interfere with their connection to the characters and their suspension of disbelief.
Normally, a director would discuss with their cinematographer what kind of lighting, angles, and movement they want to shoot that sets the tone of the film. But since Jared and I trade off on camera operating and sound, we had a tacit understanding instead to just pick up the camera and shoot conservative/traditional coverage, in sync with our technique and style from the Life’s Waltz short. Traditional coverage comprises the master shot (whole scene to give the context), wide shot (WS=full bodies of characters), medium shot (MS=waists and up), and the close-up shot (CU=shoulders and up, or just faces), all typically on-level with whatever is being framed, and maybe throw in a couple of “cutaways” like CUs on hands.
So, we finally had that conversation…and…
After further discussion, we’ve decided on a couple of things: if the situation calls for it and if traditional coverage has already been shot, the camera operator has the liberty to stylize the shots with a little experimentation. Secondly, if the situation doesn’t call for this, we’ll stick to more conservative coverage. An important realization was that we can always heighten the energy of any given scene or part of the film with a faster-paced editing. Traditional coverage can be edited slow or fast, and everywhere in between on the spectrum. Stylized coverage, on the other hand, would introduce a potential constraint in the editing room so as to only allow for fast-paced cutting. For our purposes, therefore, we’re going to generally stick to traditional coverage, because we’ll only know in the editing room which parts of the film will require a faster or slower pace, depending on what part of this or that character’s emotional arc we’re in, the context of the scene at hand, and the narrative arcs of the film on the whole.
So there you have it–the definition of what active seniors are and the effect on our camerawork and editing. And to be honest, we’re pretty relieved. The thing is, our film is about what it’s like to grow old and to live in a retirement community, all for the typical person who’s going to be a typical senior. Bungee-jumping 90-year-olds, though quite physically active, are the exception, and while we are very interested in jumping out of a plane in order to film a senior doing such an extraordinary activity, our film is not about that… at least not right now! And in practical terms, this translates for us to: conservative coverage doesn’t mean it’s bad, in fact it’s perfect for the subject matter and therefore it’s the right choice for the film.
Ahhhh, such are the revelations of documentary filmmakers!
19
A Brief Note on Goals and Shooting/Final Cut Ratio
Comments | Posted by Jared Scheib in Filmmaking, Project Updates
We’ve shot 451.44 GB of footage which translates, at 14.92 GB/98 minutes, to 49.42 hours (49:25:20 h:m:s) of footage shot. Our goal for the first month is, as Ashley mentioned, to shoot 75 hours of footage, 40 of which should be interview and 35 of which should be active. While we don’t know the breakdown of interview to active footage shot, that means that we’re 25 hours short of our goal, with 5 days remaining to meet our goal until Ashley goes home to Oregon for a few days for Christmas. That means 25 hours in 5 days, which actually should be attainable if we’re diligent: just 5 hours a day. After all, we’re at TVN from 10am to 8pm every day on average anyway, so we should be able to get there! Just need to ramp it up a little.
Our original goal for January, then, is to shoot 100 hours. To give y’all a sense of perspective, for our previous version of Life’s Waltz, we shot 28 full tapes (42 minutes each) of footage that we cut down to a 16:30 minute film, which boils down to about a 71:1 ratio of footage shot to footage included in the final product. Given we’re aiming to shoot 175 hours total (a goal that may or may not be met, of course, but we will try!) for the feature version and cut it down to, let’s say, a 90-minute film, this would yield a ratio of about 117:1! Maybe we should just stop now and save ourselves time in the editing room! No… but let’s just say that the editing process will be neither quick nor easy! “Fun” may be the word I’m looking for.
Well, I don’t know who your circle of friends are, but here are two
new buddies of mine, Dorothy and Jackie:
Eating lunch with Dorothy….
Jared!
Dorothy’s lunch: cottage cheese, carrots, peanuts, and olives. Mmmmm!
Jared relays his initial impressions of filming and tells a story about the first public filming at dinner.
Jared with Sam Berger, the man who gave us the toothbrushes.
A lot of people have asked me, “When you sit down with your subjects, what do you ask them?” or, “How do you get people to say the ‘right thing’?“
I hate to disappoint, but there is no” right or wrong” thing for any of our participants to say. The beautiful and fascinating thing about the documentary process is that the characters speak to us; we don’t craft them. The only thing in our control at this stage in production is the ability to create such an environment for them so that they are comfortable with opening up to us.
Generally, we begin an interview with basic questions: “Let’s start with you telling us your name, age, where you’re from…etc.” And off they go! Sometimes we can’t get a word in for the next 2 hours; and sometimes, getting anymore information is like pulling teeth! 
After a few minutes, we get more specific: “Tell me more about the first time you met your husband…” This approach helps in getting the individual to restate the “question” so that the footage will make sense if the audience didn’t hear the original question.
After a few more visits, and after the subject is even more comfortable opening up to us, we might even go the random route: “Tell us about your first kiss…” or “How did your marriage challenge you?“
It’s wonderful to hear about the amazing moments from when widows/widowers first met their significant other–I especially love when couples correct each other, “No, it happened this way!“
Sometimes it goes this way:
Husband: “Well, I was making $75 a week–”
Wife: “–no, you were making $100 a week, or I wouldn’t have gone out on that date with you!“
Here are some other things we think about when filming:
1. Never interrupt anyone at anytime! Unless the roof is about to cave in or that person’s life is in danger…
2. After the individual is done speaking, we allow for a grace period of silence. Interestingly, this is actually when some of the most remarkable personal information is revealed.
3. And, I’ve been told by a friend (it’s you Cecelia, if you’re reading!) that if you let someone sit for 7 seconds in silence, they’ll eventually speak up. Our culture is predisposed to talking, talking, talking, so if you give them those 7 seconds, they feel compelled to fill the silence (this coincides with #2). And more than often, they do!
4. When you’re interviewing 2 people at a time, we usually want to cut ourselves out of the conversation and get those two to simply interact with each other organically. So we look away and avoid eye contact! (but re-establish eye contact when the moment is over so that they do not think you are just ignoring them!) Whoever’s operating sound will look down at the mixer and the camera operator will look down or away. This helps to characterize those individuals and generate more interaction between the two to make it feel like a simple conversation between the two caught on camera.
Please feel free to comment with any questions, we’re happy to answer! I will post more techniques we use in the filming process in the coming weeks…
