Walter Murch Interviews Anne v. Coates

FilmSound.orgLearning Space dedicated to

the Art and Analyses of Film Sound Design

Sections What's new? Site Map About Site Search Sound Article List Guestbook Links New Books

Walter Murch Interviews Anne V. Coates

By Walter Murch

Anne V. Coates has edited 48 films in as many years. Her first

love was horses; as a girl, she thought she'd be a race-horse

trainer. As a teenager, an introduction to classic literature on

film, such as "Jane Eyre" and "Wuthering Heights," changed her

mind. She took a job with a small non-union house, Religious

Films, which led to her joining the union and working as a

second assistant at Pinewood Studios. The first film she cut was

"The Pickwick Papers." A self-described intuitive editor, Coates

has edited such films as "The Horse's Mouth," "Lawrence of

Arabia" (for which she won an Academy Award), "Becket," "The

Elephant Man," "Ragtime," "Chaplin" and, most recently, the

Julia Roberts hit "Erin Brockovich".

A generation after Coates began her career, Walter Murch

graduated from the USC School of Cinema-Television along with

George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola. Shunning Hollywood,

the group set up shop in San Francisco, where they opened

Zoetrope Studios. "Our idea was to have an egalitarian studio,"

Murch says. He worked as a sound recordist and mixer before

taking on his first film as picture editor, "The Conversation."

Since then he has edited such classics as "Apocalypse Now," the

"Godfather" trilogy, "The English Patient," for which he won the

Oscar, and last year's "The Talented Mr. Ripley."

Murch and Coates sat down together recently to talk about their

careers, editing styles and philosophies, directors they have

worked with and the future of editing.

Walter Murch: When editing started out in the early years of

the century, the larger portion of editors were women, and it

was with the coming of sound that men proportionately began

to be more involved in editing. Do you see this, or is it different

in your experience in England?

Anne V. Coates: When I first came into the industry in England,

there were quite a lot of women editors. And then slowly they

fell by the wayside. They didn't seem to have the ambition,

which I always thought was strange. When I left in 1986, I

think there was only one other woman doing big features in

England. There were quite a few doing television and

commercials and things, but I can't put my finger on why that

was.

But I have a different theory about the beginning. As you

rightly say, most of the editors were women, and they started

by cutting negative. And I think that women were considered

more patient and careful and all those sorts of things.

M: Maybe they didn't smoke as much.

C: And they were more precise. But I was taught, or I must

have heard it somewhere, that as it became a more important

job, men started to get in on it. While it was just a background

job, they let the women do it. But when people realized how

interesting and creative editing could be, then the men elbowed

the women out of the way and kind of took over.

There were some wonderful women editors who helped inspire

Walter Murch interviews Anne V. Coates http://filmsound.org/murch/coates.htm

1 de 12 05/06/2011 21:58

me to go into editing in England. In a way, I've never looked at

myself as a woman in the business. I've just looked at myself as

an editor. I mean, I'm sure I've been turned down because I'm

a woman, but then other times I've been used because they

wanted a woman editor.

I just think, "I'm an editor," and I never expected to get paid

less because I was a woman. I grew up with three brothers, and

I never thought I would get paid less for anything than they

did.

M: When you were growing up, did film interest you in a

particular way, and if it didn't, then how did you get involved in

film?

C: I didn't go to the cinema very much as a child. When my

parents divorced, my father used to take us to the cinema for

his treat. I remember seeing films like "Lost Horizon," which I

thought was magic, "Jane Eyre" and "Wuthering Heights." I fell

madly in love with Laurence Olivier. When I saw the magic on

the screen, what it could do, it suddenly came alive to me. It

held my imagination in a way that made me become interested

in films. When I had my first job, I had never seen a piece of

35mm film in my life.

M: Really?

C: No. I was a projectionist and sound recordist. I sent the films

out, and when they came back, they were nitrate-filled. I

learned how you do those lovely patches, things like that. And

it was kind of fun. Then I got into the real world of film.

M: How did that happen?

C: Well, they unionized us, and nobody wanted to go into the

union except me. Then I heard there was this job at Pinewood

Studios for a second assistant, so I applied.

But I was not qualified, so I wasn't truthful in my interview. I

said I could make tracks and order opticals and do all these

things which I had never done in my life. Then I had a crash

course for a week with a friend of mine in the editing booth.

The first film I did was for Michael Powell, who was making "The

Red Shoes" at the same time. Reggie Mills, who was his top

editor, took the picture over to recut it. Reggie Mills didn't want

the first assistant to go up with the film, so I went up. And he

was wonderful. I mean, he never actually taught me anything

as such, but watching him and the discipline were so good for

me. And, you know, he never spoke. I just used to hand him

the trims and ask for the trims. Then I got into working on "The

Red Shoes" for a little bit, helping out on that, and was able to

go on the set to watch, so it was an interesting time.

M: Digital editing doesn't allow you to have a relationship with

somebody like Reggie Mills in quite the same way. In the old

days, with Moviola, an assistant stood right next to the editor

and handed trims. An assistant was able to watch everything

that was going on and was a minute-by-minute participant in

the process. Now there tends to be a division between what the

editor is doing, and all the requirements, which have ballooned

tremendously, that an assistant has to do, which are

administrative in a different sense.

C: And they have to be in another room.

M: What's your feeling about that, and how do you think we can

move forward in training upcoming editors?


2 de 12 05/06/2011 21:58

C: As opposed to the way I did it, just watching, hoping and

learning, I think we've got to involve them, have them in the

cutting rooms and show them what we're doing. I try to let

mine cut some scenes and then talk to them about it. I don't do

it as much as I should. And I try to be careful not to trample on

my own assistants and stifle their ideas. But I can't actually

have somebody watching me cut -- my first cut, that is. I like to

be alone.

M: I remember when I worked with Fred Zinnemann in 1976 on

"Julia." I'd cut the first two or three scenes together. He was

shooting on location up in the Lake District, so he said, "Why

don't you bring what you've cut, and we'll take a look at it?" I

did, and we looked at it. I thought to myself, "This is terrible,"

but he thought it was very good. He said, "Remember that

editing film is the most solitary job on a motion picture."

C: I think editing a film is such a personal thing.

M: I took that to heart, and I went back and said, "All right, it's

just me and the film. I'm not going to think about anybody else.

I'm going to tell a story that makes me react in a good way,"

obviously hoping that this would please others as well.

It was a liberating experience. Until then I had worked with

friends, Lucas and Coppola. We'd all grown up in film school

together, and we all knew each other. So it was really just a

band of jolly fellows. "Julia" was the first time I'd left that

particular nest.

C: Oh, I see. I didn't realize that.

David Lean always used to say, "Have the courage of your

conviction, tell the story your way. I'll respect what you did,

although in certain instances I may want things another way."

He would hold these shots of the desert, and I'd say, "David,

you can't hold them that long." However, he said, "Wait until

the music's on, wait until the whole rhythm is together." And he

was right.

M: That's something that you feel (and I think every editor

feels) in the pit of your stomach when you sit down, particularly

to cut the first scene of a film. Because you're not only cutting

this scene, you are establishing your relationship with the

project -- how this project is going to be different from other

projects that you worked on. You want to be as true as possible

to that difference. The possibilities are vast, but you have to

start somewhere, so you think, "Where could I begin the scene?

Let's open with this shot."

C: Yes, just go for something.

M: And then once you make that first decision, the possibilities

decrease: "If I've begun with this, then I have to do this, and

then it might be interesting to do that." And step by step you

find yourself suddenly…

C: Following a particular line, dictated by the story, the

performances, the way the director shot it and that sort of

thing. I find when I start on a new film, it usually takes me a

scene or two to get into the film and find the particular style or

feeling for that film. I usually cut to two or three scenes and I

think, "Oh, God, I've lost my touch," and then I cut a scene and

think, "Wow!" That gives you the confidence, and you go back

to the others, and you've got the line, you've got the feel for

the film.

M: You've worked with so many different directors over the

course of your career. How do you establish the working

creative relationship with the director?


3 de 12 05/06/2011 21:58

C: I like working with different people, and particularly with

young directors. I talk to them about the film and try to find out

what the director is expecting. Some of them are not very

communicative, and finding that common ground takes a little

bit of time, too. I like to run scenes with a director after I've

begun, but Steven Soderbergh didn't see a foot of "Erin" before

we finished. He did on "Out of Sight."

M: "Out of Sight" was the first time you had collaborated

together.

C: Yes. But on "Erin," he didn't see any of it, due to

circumstances: they were on location.

M: Also, presumably, because he'd worked with you before.

C: I was trying to get him to see things, because I wanted to

feel I was on the right line. But I don't ever cut two or three

versions, like one can do digitally. I show the director one

version. Then if we alter it, that's fine. But you know, I have

my feeling about the film, and I guess I've been lucky that most

of the time I've been in the same direction as the director. I try

to work with directors whose work I like and find interesting.

When I was younger, I had to find work where I could, and I

had some not great experiences with directors.

I like having a little edge with the director -- you know,

discussions and arguments. I think that's what editors are

partly there for, like a sounding board. When I first worked on

"Out of Sight," I knew that Steven did things in a fairly far-out

way. So I said to him, "Stretch me." We tried a lot of things

that we didn't put in the picture. Steven was always coming up

with great ideas. I like working with him a lot.

M: What are the things that determine your choice of a

particular project?

C: How it moves me. How it involves me. I like films about

people, human stories. I enjoy special effects movies, but I

don't enjoy cutting them that much. Also the director. I like to

be challenged and I like it to be different. The thing I want to

do is a cowboy movie. I'm hoping one of these days it will come

along.

M: Also, every film has its own fingerprint or genetic marker

that makes it different from the others. Editors are on the film

for the better part of the year on the average, so you get

soaked in that particular broth.

C: And you want to get it out of your mind. I like to take time

off between films. I think it's important to live your life. I don't

think that if you are just an editor all the time that you are

going to be a good editor. You've got to go out and experience

things, see things and travel.

M: I think that, too. I look at it in ways similar to how an actor

would. You want the part to be recognizably you, otherwise it's

a complete miscast. On the other hand, you want something

that is going to stretch you and take you to a place that you've

never been before. That challenge is an important part of

maintaining your sanity in this business.

C: At one stage of my life, I thought I was getting into rather

empty big pictures, and I made a conscious decision to do

smaller, interesting pictures. I did "The Elephant Man," and that

was one of the best decisions of my life. But it's difficult here

because once you do them for less money, then they don't want

to pay your money again. That doesn't happen in England.

M: Also in England there aren't the barriers between


4 de 12 05/06/2011 21:58

commercials, television and features, or big and small features.

C: When I first came to the U.S., you had to be an assistant for

eight years or something ridiculous. I cut after about four

years.

M: In my case, I never even passed through the assistant

phase. I had done sound editing and mixing, and I'd cut

documentaries and commercials, non-union. I had to be my

own assistant. Suddenly I found myself the editor on "The

Conversation."

C: But I think you've got to take the chances when you have

them.

M: Yes. Even when I'm hiring somebody and I have a very

strong feeling that they're gilding their resume, I don't hold

that against them.

C: Everybody has to sell themselves. My assistants are all

film-trained. None of them comes from computers.

The first film I did digitally was "Congo," and Frank Marshall

had my crew and me trained. We had private teachers, but we

were really the blind leading the blind, and it was an extremely

difficult picture. So I ran screaming and kicking to digital.

M: And that was the early days for digital, because it didn't

come into its own until the mid '90s. When you started out, you

obviously were working with a Moviola?

C: Yes.

M: Did you ever go through the Kem/Steenbeck phase?

C: I used both of them. I would do my first cut always on a

Moviola, until I went digital, and then when I got to the next

stage, working with the director, I would work on either a Kem

or Steenbeck, and I found that was a lot better than working on

Moviola. You could sit back and look at it. But I thought I would

never do a first cut on digital. I mean, I thought I'd never get

the same feeling of doing it that I had with my Moviola. But of

course you do.

You know, you cut it from the inside out when you're working

on a Moviola, and you cut from the outside in when you're

doing it digitally -- because it's up there and you cut it, and

then you start molding more. With a Moviola, you kind of mold

as you do it.

M: I went through all three phases. I started out on the

Moviola. "Julia" was cut on a Moviola. "The Unbearable

Lightness of Being" was for the most part assembled on a

Moviola and then cut on a flatbed. Like everything else during

that period of the '70s and '80s, "The Conversation,"

"Apocalypse Now" and "Ghost" were cut on flatbeds.

C: You preferred it? Or you just evolved to it because that was

what was happening?

M: I certainly liked the viewability of the material on the

flatbed, and it was part of Zoetrope's policy in the early days.

We were going to be a modern company (this was 1969, 1970)

and so there were no Moviolas around. When I got "The

Conversation," it was simply understood that I would cut it on

the Kem. I developed this rather quirky way of working on

flatbeds, which is very much what you're talking about. The

Moviola is sculptural in the sense of a clay sculpture that you're


5 de 12 05/06/2011 21:58

building up from bits, whereas the Kem is sculptural in the

sense that there is a block of marble and you're removing bits.

C: You get the same thing because it's what's really in your

head, but you just attack it a different way.

M: The big advantage that I found with the Kem is that I didn't

make select rolls. You know, it's technically possible to create

the digital equivalent of daily rolls.

C: I have a Kem roll made if it's a big sequence that we've

seen, and maybe I'm not going to get to cut it for a few days.

M: Right, I do too.

C: How much do you think editing will change now that we're

digital? They carried out a survey where they said there were

many more cuts and certainly more opticals than there were

before. But do you feel your style has changed a lot?

M: After I cut "The English Patient," which is the first full film

that I cut digitally, I was curious to go back and look at

something that I cut 20 years earlier, "Julia" or "The

Conversation." But they looked the same to me. So I think it's

more dependent on the people.

C: I don't think my style has changed particularly, either.

M: I think there is a period whenever new technology comes in

that you get drunk with the potential of it and you overuse it.

Look at when the zoom lens came into wide use in the '60s:

there was all this fast zooming. None of that is left. Yet all films

are shot with zoom lenses for the most part.

C: I think cutting is faster now than it was 20 years ago

because of commercials and the MTVs and things like that.

M: On the other hand, you look at a film like "His Girl Friday,"

the Howard Hawks film with Rosalind Russell…

C: And Cary Grant.

M: There aren't many cuts in that film, but the speed with

which the dialogue is given to you is something that audiences

wouldn't know how to take today. You know the repartee and

the need to keep up with the dialogue back and forth. It's

similar to cutting. How fast you can process information is

really all we're talking about. And in those days there was a

style of quick repartee in dialogue that is almost completely

gone now. And it perhaps has been replaced by a quick repartee

in image, certainly in MTV and television-based things. I think

it's less adaptable to the big screen, that extremely quick style

of cutting.

C: I don't like when it's so quick you don't see what's

happening. What's the point in having the shot?

M: Also, when you're looking at the picture, it's taking up a

good 30 degrees of your vision at least. Sometimes even more

if you're sitting close to the screen. Whereas a television is

something that's over in the corner and it's maybe two degrees,

so it has to be very aggressive editorially to catch your eye.

C: But going back to what you were saying about playing the

scene in one take, when I first went into editing, I was always

told never to cut -- to hold the scene as long as it played. With

British actors who are pretty good, you could play those scenes.

Even quite small actors were so good that you didn't feel you

had to cut. I still have that feeling, actually.

M: So do I.


6 de 12 05/06/2011 21:58

C: But a lot of directors don't give you masters. Steven

(Soderbergh) doesn't do any masters, so you are never in that

position, but even then I don't cut when I don't feel it's

necessary.

M: Exactly. When I'm looking at a shot, and all the story is

being told in this one shot, there's no reason to cut. When that

shot can no longer deliver the information -- it becomes

repetitious or redundant or it simply runs out -- that's where

you have to cut. But it is best if you don't cut if you don't have

to.

C: I don't think people are brought up that way today. They're

brought up to cut, cut, cut, cut, cut.

However, I do think there are more opticals since we went

digital. I know that on the first film I did digitally, "Congo," I

was able to show Frank (Marshall), the director, these dissolves

going through the jungle and things like that. I think if I had

just explained it to him and had not shown it to him, he

probably wouldn't have liked the idea particularly, but thought

it was rather old-fashioned, the dissolves and things. But on

that film, when he saw it worked so well, we used them. And I

think it was directly due to being on digital and the fact that

you could do it. I've always believed that if it's right to have an

optical, you should have it, regardless of whether it's

fashionable or not.

M: Now it's spilling wildly out from simple dissolves and fades

into changing the architecture of the shot, such as getting rid of

a skyline or non-period things. It's easy to send something out,

get it digitized and make the final negative as perfect as you

want it, so I can only see that process accelerating. And

ultimately, if the trends continue, I have no doubt that editors

will be working on a releasable-quality image that you can show

in a theater, and we will be making the answer print and doing

some of the simpler opticals in-house. And I see this happening

in sound, too. So it gets faster, but it does get more and more

complicated.

C: It does get complicated. Have you done a film that's gone

negative straight from digital and not had dailies? Because I

haven't done that yet.

M: No, I haven't, but I did a small final polish of "The Apostle."Robert Duvall shot that for about $4 million. Originally they did notprint workprint, to save money. In fact, they didn't even print theconformed workprint. They got the version they wanted on theAvid and then cut negative directly from the edit decision list. Ithink the first time Duvall actually saw the film on film with anaudience was when it ran at the Toronto Film Festival.

C: My sons, who direct cheaper films, do it that way. They gostraight from the negative into film. But it would worry me if I had

to do that.

M: The resolution is not yet there so that you can detect somethingslightly or moderately out of focus. If it's wildly out of focus youcan pick it up, but things that are borderline don't show up.

C: I go back and look at stuff on the Kem. We have one that we'rechecking dailies on. I'll go and look at shots when I can't clearly getthe image, the eyes and everything from those pixels.

M: It's gotten so much better though, certainly since when we weredoing "Godfather III." It was extremely difficult to grasp subtle


7 de 12 05/06/2011 21:58

shifts of expression in somebody's eyes unless it was a big close-up.And now there are very few surprises like that. I hear that thissummer there will be a big bump up on the Avid; at any rate, AVR6will be the equivalent of Betacam quality. So it's all a question ofthe software, the memory and the processing speed.

C: Do you work on an Avid or Lightworks?

M: As it turns out, it's just been the Avid.

C: Because I did three pictures on Lightworks, and now I've donethree on the Avid. I think I prefer the Avid, though if they said,"You have to use the Lightworks," it wouldn't really worry me. Iused to think I would like to go back to film, but I wouldn't go backto film again now. I think we've moved on. My mind's moved on.

M: I agree. But it's an inherent limitation of the digital systems thatthe speed a frame is scanned at is set by the computer only, andyou have to work with that. Whereas the Kem or the Steenbeckbeing mechanical systems, when you speed up, the time that theframe is on shrinks. The scanning rate is changeable. So you seeevery frame. You just see everything short. It's always amazing tome how much you can pick up -- you can see people blinking. Thehuman eye, particularly if it's trained to look for these things, isvery fast. However, I agree with you, because of what can be done

with sound and optically, let alone all the other advantages ofdigital.

C: I have to say that I enjoyed cutting on film more than I enjoycutting digitally. There's a relationship you had with the directorthat was so much better -- you could talk to him. You have toconcentrate so much on an Avid, and then you always had the timebecause you were hanging up trims or splicing or whatever. I missthat lovely magic.

And I would then take it into the screening room with my crew, sothey were much more involved. I would run my first cut, and we'dall look at it together. I think you got a marvelous impression thatyou never have the chance to have on an Avid because, howevermuch I train myself, I'm always going back and looking at the cuts.I didn't do that on film. So I love that first impression. You weren'tworried about the cuts or a few of the matching problems oranything like that. You saw the film as it was meant to be seen fordramatic impact -- the acting, the storytelling and everything.

M: It's particularly true for editors of your generation, because I

remember working with William Reynolds on "The Godfather,"who also paper-clipped things together exactly the same.

C: Michael Kahn does, too.

M: And for people of my generation who are about 20 years furtherback, the take splicer had already evolved, so when we were at filmschool, we just did it.

When I was starting out, one of the hardest things was not worrying

if the cut didn't work. What was important was to get the ideas inproximity to each other and get the emotion moving. You'd alwaysfind a way to make the cut work, but you can easily lose an entireday fretting about some silly thing that's an issue of one or twoframes.


8 de 12 05/06/2011 21:58

There's a wonderful story I heard about John Huston and a film hemade in the '50s or '60s. They had screened the cut in the screeningroom, and John had made some notes. The editor was going to goback to the editing room and asked John to come up and settle itright then. John was horrified. He said, "What, go into the editingroom? Why, I'd no sooner go into the editing room to watch the

film be assembled than watch my wife getting dressed for anevening gala. I just want to see the final effects."

C: That's great! I'd never heard that.

M: It's a sensibility that is almost completely gone.

C: I've heard editors saying they didn't like the directors in theircutting room. I never minded. I was always happy to have themthere. But nowadays, if you said that, you wouldn't get employed.

M: But the idea that the director is somebody who would only sit inthe viewing room and watch the entire film and not be concernedover the particular architecture of how it got there -- that's an ideathat probably died with John Huston.

C: Well, I worked with John Ford for a brief time.

M: Fred Zinnemann was a bit that way, too.

C: And Ronnie Neame. He didn't want to see any of the cut stuffbefore. He wanted to see it all at the end. But I think it's a goodidea for new directors to look at what you're doing. Because, I don'tknow about you, but I'm always nervous about what I'm doing. Butthat's the exciting thing; I love watching a film come together.

M: There's nothing like it. I think the editor is particularly privilegedto be the midwife of this birth, and you really do see before anyoneelse how this thing is actually lumbering into life. Very few otherpeople on a film…

C: Are in all the way through.

M: The director obviously, but even producers are off preparingsome other project.

C: I find that if they like it, they often don't say anything. Theydon't even say, "That's great."

M: Silence is a compliment. Have you ever collaborated withanother editor?

C: Well, Artie Schmidt came on to "Congo." He is such a greateditor and a great friend of mine. I've always tried not tocollaborate with anybody, though. I like working by myself. As Isaid earlier, it's a personal thing to me. You're the same, aren't you?

M: Well, I've collaborated quite a lot: "The Conversation" withRichard Chew; "Apocalypse Now" with Richie Marks, JerryGreenberg and Lisa Fruchtman; "The Unbearable Lightness ofBeing" with B.J. Sears, Steve Rotter and Vivien Gilliam;

"Godfather III" with Lisa Fruchtman and Barry Malkin. I came onin the last four months of "Godfather III" to help meet the deadline.

C: How about the other "Godfathers"?

M: Well, I did the sound on "Godfather I and II." "Godfather I"


9 de 12 05/06/2011 21:58

was edited by Peter Zinner and Bill Reynolds. And they cut thefilm right in half. It was Bill Reynolds up to the trip to Sicily, Ithink, and then Peter Zinner from there to the end. Each of themhad an hour-and-a-half feature film to cut.

C: Did they then go back onto each other's work?

M: No, it was completely separate. Whereas on "Godfather II,"Peter Zinner, Barry Malkin and Richie Marks were swappingscenes, and everything was always completely mixed up.

C: I think it's difficult when you're swapping scenes, becauseeverybody's going to do things a bit differently. But how have youworked when you've done that? Have you swapped scenes?

M: In "Apocalypse Now," I came on in August '77 after theyfinished shooting, and we didn't know it but we had two years to go-- it was two years in post-production. Most of the material hadalready been assembled. I came on and took over from thebeginning through that massacre in the sampan in the middle, whichis roughly halfway through. With the notable exception of thehelicopter battle scene, which Jerry Greenberg was already workingon.

C: Just that scene.

M: Just that scene, which is a feature film in itself. I think therewere 300,000 feet of dailies for that, with many thousand-footloads of multiple cameras, eight cameras shooting simultaneously.And then Jerry left the film in the spring of '78. By that time it wasin very good shape. So I continued to work on it, but in the overallinterest of cutting things down. In the end it was a 25-minutesequence. So in general, Richie Marks took the second half of thefilm, and I took the first half, and Lisa Fruchtman did the Playboyconcert and some of the other scenes here and there.

C: I think it's good if you can do that, but with swapping scenesback and forth, I would feel odd about altering somebody else'swork.

M: That's one of the potential perils of the digital age. Now, in afew hours, the entire drives of what you have can be cloned, andthe studio can put their own editor on the film, cut it the way theywant it and then use that to nudge or shove the film in a certaindirection. Whereas that was never even technically possible in thedays of 35mm films.

With "Erin Brockovich," how long was your first assembly andhow easy was it to get it down to the length that you have it now?

C: It was quite long, because some of the montages were veryloose. I guess it was about three hours. But it was easy to get outthe first amount of time, then getting out the last bits. They wantedit to run just over two hours, which it does. We did have a tightschedule at one time. We were going to open before Christmas, andthen they decided not to do that because Julia (Roberts) had two

successful films last year. Then we had an easy schedule. It wasone of the easiest, most pleasant films I've ever worked on. Stevensaid how great it had been, and everybody was very high on it. Butbeing British, I'm always nervous until it opens and you actually seeit.


10 de 12 05/06/2011 21:58

We always had in the schedule two or three days of extra shots,which we took advantage of and did this scene with Julia andAlbert (Finney) at the end.

M: With a $2 million check.

C: That's right. As I'm sure you know, often when you don't have ascene you really need toward the end, and it's written later, it standsout like a sore thumb, because it's not very good, and it doesn't dowhat you want. But this scene, which was written by RichardLaGravenese, did exactly what we wanted in exactly the rightplace. And they both played it so beautifully. It made the differenceto the film, I think.

M: When you're assembling the first scenes and trying to get thatmagic moment where you say, "OK, now I get it," where do you get

the clues to do that? From the actors? From the camera work?

C: I would say mostly the actors, particularly in a film like "Erin,"which is very much...

M: Dominated...

C: By the performances.

M: That's what I've found. You search out, and it's not always

obvious at first glance, this vein of gold, that rhythmic pulse. It'swhat a conductor does when he has to conduct a symphony andtries to find out how he is going to do this. All the notes are writtendown, but you have to know how you're going to do it. And thenonce you find it, you can find ways to extend that into areas wherethere are no actors, even -- for example, how long you are going tohold this long shot of the landscape. You can hold it forever, likeDavid Lean, and make a point about that, or you can hold it justlong enough to get the idea across that it's a horizontal landscapeor...

C: That you're going into a bad district...

M: Or somewhere in between. So it's that dodgy area of somewherein between.

C: Those are the difficult scenes to cut. Like when Julia comes intoHinkley (in Calif.) for the first time and is looking around. That wasquite a large sequence at one time. She drives in, looking, turning,stopping and all that kind of thing. In the end it was about six shots,I think, before she arrives at Donna's house.

But as you say, those are difficult scenes to cut for the pacing andthe rhythm -- more difficult sometimes than the dialogue scenes,which have their own rhythm. We didn't bring them down in onefell swoop; we nibbled at them.

M: Yeah, I've seen two different approaches to cutting down a film.One of them is the nibbling approach, which is to make all theobvious changes and then look at it. And now that it's shorter, youwill see things that you didn't see when it was longer, and now you

nibble away a little bit more. Then there's the opposite approach,which is almost to brutally whack it down to very close to thelength you want it to be for release, and then look at what isadmittedly a bleeding patient on the stretcher and say, "All right,what do we have to do now to fix this?" Have you found this withdifferent directors?


11 de 12 05/06/2011 21:58

C: I've found the first approach more often, and I've always advisedthat you go slowly at it, that you don't start slashing at it and throwthe baby out with the bath water or whatever that expression is.

M: Right, because sometimes you can't tell the baby from the bath

water. Well, this has been fascinating for me.

C: Yes, it was nice talking to you.

EditorsNet May 2000

Original URL http://www.editorsnet.com/article/mainv/0,7220,121767,00.html

FilmSound.org Your Learning Space for Film Sound

SECTIONS:

Star Wars Sounds Film Sound Clichés Film Sound History Movie Sound Articles Bibliography

Questions & Answers Game Audio Animation Sound Glossaries Randy Thom Articles

Walter Murch Articles Foley Artistry Sci-Fi Film Sound Film Music Home Theatre Sound

Theoretical Texts Sound Effects Libraries Miscellaneous


12 de 12 05/06/2011 21:58

Walter Murch Interviews Anne v. Coates

Documents

Transcript of Walter Murch Interviews Anne v. Coates