20:05 has been my most ambitious project to date. The painstakingly detailed weeks of pre-production, the exhausting shoots (and subsequent reshoots), and the seemingly endless hours spent combing through and fine-cutting the footage has all culminated in a short film that is as dynamic and compelling as we’d hoped it would be. With this blog, I aimed to explain the process of how we created this film step-by-step, from the story’s inception to its final cut.
Author: tombache7902
Week 12
In the last few days of our term it became clear I didn’t have the time to produce a final cut that met our high expectations, and I therefore planned to come up on the 9th of January, 5 days before the film was due. The whole reshoot process had admittedly left us tight for time, but I was positive I could tie it all together in the short amount we had.
We were also short on time because of fundamental changes made to the film’s structure. While our first two scenes were gripping and exciting, the last three revealed more about Beth’s and Jamie’s relationship, so were naturally dialogue heavy. As a result of this, the second half of the film felt dull and anticlimactic, not living up to the promise of the first two scenes. I decided to keep the same opening scene (Beth’s initial reaction to the murder), but then show the preceding events in order, instead of playing in reverse chronology from the murder backwards. Having the opening scene serve more as a ‘flash-forward’ to the ending established a more consistent and impactful pace, giving the uptight and threatening atmosphere in the dialogue scenes the space to escalate at a natural rhythm, until finally exploding in the climax.
I wanted to leave university with a fine cut of both the original structure and my altered one, as our group could analyse it over the break and I could return to editing with a fresh mind and a precise idea of what needed to be done. I exported my work as a .mov and then uploaded it to Vimeo, which said it would take a few hours to finalise. It was only on my journey home that I tried to view it on my laptop and saw there had been an upload error. I didn’t understand codecs and that the way I encode a file will affect the devices it can be played on, a mistake that cost me valuable time as I wasn’t able to watch my film at home.
When I finally got the chance to edit on the 9th, I was able to send the crew both fine cuts through using Adobe Media Encoder. I found the application’s design clearer and more intuitive than Avid, as I simply had to drag and drop a codec that would suit streaming services onto my .mov file.
My group agreed that the changed structure made the film more dynamic and coherent, meaning it was time to perfect the picture and move on to the colour grade and audio edit.
I was confident I could complete these two remaining tasks in the 3 days I had left, assuming everything went according to plan. Only it didn’t. I had offloaded the original footage and the reshot footage onto Avid through two separate computers, and it was at this point I realised how difficult reconnecting the two would be. To make matters worse, I discovered the magnitude of this problem on Friday afternoon, meaning there would be no staff around to show me how to solve it until the day the film was due. The situation was too complicated to explain via email, although it didn’t stop me trying, and after my workshop tutor couldn’t find a solution, me and the director made the decision to grade our film through Avid to make the best use of our time. Because we were editing with reduced-quality copies of the original files, colour adjustments were more harsh and severe, which made the aesthetics of some shots erratic and inconsistent. My most important and unexpected takeaway from this project is just how essential offloading and formatting your footage correctly is. I’ve learnt to not take shortcuts or act carelessly when it comes to ‘data wrangling’, as I’ve now experienced the colossal impact it can have.
Despite my troubles with grading, I found mixing the audio to be relatively straightforward and rewarding. Apart from Beth’s screams occasionally clipping (due to the mic sensitivity being too high when recording), there were no major problems with the audio. I especially enjoyed applying and customising the effects on Ben’s dialogue to make his voice sound as if it was coming through the phone, adding a sense of immersion and realism to the film.
I uploaded the final cut to YouTube and shared with my team, who all agreed they were happy with the end product. Finally, with a sense of pride and relief, I pressed submit.
Week 11
There were some complications in organising this week’s reshoots, as Rebecca told us she was ill and couldn’t make it. But after some encouragement from our producer, she agreed to film for a few hours on the 11th of December at 3:00pm. This meant we stuck to an extremely strict schedule, and made sure we understood and planned every shot in order to use our time most efficiently.
During our reshoots we encountered a complication with the Zoom F4 where the audio would only record onto the left earphone. This was a huge obstacle, and threatened to derail our whole day of filming. However, because I had spent the time during pre-production to learn the intricacies of this equipment I was able to identify and fix the problem confidently and efficiently.
In some cases, the actors changed positions between takes which made for an extremely obvious breach of continuity when the clips were edited together. With this in mind, during the reshoots we tried to maintain the continuity as best as possible, with the producer taking pictures during takes to refer back to in later shots. Despite this, I thought that many of the film’s cuts still came across as fairly distracting and unnatural, and that there was more I could do to make some of my cuts feel even more seamless.
I’ve recently read about the method of seamless editing in Ken Dancyger’s book, The Technique of Film &Video Editing (2019, 6th Ed). He states that “Any action that offers a distinct movement or gesture provides an opportunity within a shot for a cut” (2019, pp,395). An example of the ‘matching action’ he describes is when I cut from a two-shot to a close up of Jamie. I had the actor turn his head at the end of the two-shot and at the beginning of the close up. This gave me a clear edit point to make between the two clips, and improved the scene’s fluidity and sense of rhythm. He also affirms that “A cut is a promise of more information or more dramatic insight to come” (2019, pp.399). My example adheres to this. At the point where Beth angrily asks Jamie why he was so late he sounds guilty and ashamed, literally turning to hide his face. This is a key moment in the film where the audience are made to sympathise with Jamie, and my editing tries to heighten this sense of emotion and drama by moving to a close up, which exaggerates facial expressions and makes the audience feel more connected to the character.
Just as we were finishing up for the day, I had the sudden idea to record a lengthy audio track of Beth’s initial cries. Where we had originally planned to have our quick-cut opening sequence play in silence, I thought that her alarmed and hysterical screams would add some much-needed emotion and energy to the static shots.
While comparing what we shot to our original footage, it became apparent there was an inconsistency. For our reshoots our camerawoman was unable to make it, so the director had to stand in for her role. He was unfamiliar with the camera’s complex settings and didn’t match the white balance to our previous shots, resulting in all of our reshot footage having a noticeable yellow tint. Although this was distracting and ruined any sense of immersion, we hoped it was fixable when it came to colour grading.
Week 9 + 10
We wanted our opening to be gripping and engaging, and decided to film close ups of the unexplained carnage and cut quickly between them, creating an atmosphere of disorientation and panic within the audience. This is what Roland Barthes calls Enigma Codes, which are an element of the story that is not fully explained, and makes the audience question its meaning or significance. While conceptually our idea was strong, we didn’t anticipate how many shots were needed for this scene and our subsequent lack of footage resulted in an opening that felt disjointed, the indistinct and elongated shots completely destroying the tension I’d had hoped for.
We soon encountered another problem while assembling the film. We had planned our shot types for the dialogue-heavy scenes to be mostly two-shots, with us then cropping and zooming in on the actors faces instead of filming separate reaction shots as it would save time on set. However, while editing we found the quality of the image became grainy and pixelated. Feeling that the assembly cut didn’t match the potential we thought our ideas had, we decided to organise a day of reshoots where we’ll fix these two problems, as well as some more minor issues such as re-filming dialogue that was delivered unclearly.
Once our clips were assembled into a loose structure I began to start tinkering with the smaller aspects. There were instances where some of the shots had glaring errors but because it may have been the only take of a certain shot, I was forced to come up with creative solutions. Throughout the initial editing process, I became more familiar with the various abilities of the effect palette, something that I feel has improved the final outcome of our film.
For instance, when a light was visible in an exterior shot of Jamie, I had to use the resize tool to crop out and exclude the light’s glare. Another example is the close up of Jamie’s shoe. It begins as blurry and gradually comes into focus, lingering for a while to emphasise his lifeless body. However, the camera then loses focus again as it holds on his foot, rendering the shot useless. To work around this, I found the frame where his shoe was most in-focus, and used the freeze frame tool to extend this frame for the rest of the clip. As there was no movement in the shot, I was able to use this technique without it being noticeable. I also had to use the stabliser on some shots where the camera shakes excessively, although the application of this tool is very straightforward and requires no skill.
By the end of these two weeks, I had a rough cut that acted as a template for our final vision, leaving lots of wriggle room in between edits to give us maximum flexibility and to not confine our options. I struggled to make much progress after this, as the missing chunks of our film we haven’t yet reshot make it impossible to know how certain sequences will fit together. This is especially noticeable for our opening scene, which as it stands is just a montage of stagnant objects that ends with Beth’s piercing screams, as our footage of Jamie’s bloody corpse is unusable for the most part.
Week 8
We met on the 22nd at 8:15am, with the actors to arrive at 9:00am. This gave us 45 minutes to correctly prepare the camera/lighting, design the set, and for me to set up and test the audio equipment.
Our film is set at night time (hence the title 20:05), but the kitchen had large windows without any blinds, letting in lots of unwanted light and making the kitchen unusable. Our solution to this problem was to sellotape bin-bags to the outside windows, which blocked light from coming in and made it seem like night time.
The next day we met back up at 6:00pm to shoot 20:01, the scene of Jamie talking to Ben while walking home. I only encountered one problem on-set (or so I thought at the time), which was my struggle to remain hidden from the camera while recording. Unlike our filming inside (which allowed me to easily hide from the camera’s field of view), outside our character was in motion and the camera moved to follow him, consequently meaning I had to hide in-between cars and behind walls to best capture Jamie’s dialogue as he walked. In fact, in a few unused shots you can see my bright orange headphones poking out from behind a bush.
Due to us filming outside, my pistol-grip mic inadvertently picked up unwanted background noise. To counter this, I recorded Jamie’s monologue on a tie mic and also the atmos sound of outside, so I had the option to simply delete the footage’s audio and instead overlay both separate recordings, adjusting the tracks individually to find the right balance. In theory, my plan worked. However, it was only when it came to the assembly that I realised the tie mic had been rubbing against the collar of Jamie as he spoke, meaning all I had was the pistol-grip mic’s fuzzy and inconsistent audio. As a workaround, I’ve pulled small clips of audio from takes that we haven’t used in the film but that had clear sound, and stitched them together to form Jamie’s full sentences. This was a rather grueling process, and has taught me the importance of checking my recordings on-set where I can easily rerecord any poor audio.
I first started assembling the film at the end of this week, and throughout I tried to follow lessons I’d learnt from other established editors. One piece of advice that stood out to me in particular was from Eddie Hamilton (editor of films such as Mission Impossible and Kingsman) in an interview he gave to the film theory website So the Theory Goes. When discussing the editor’s influence on the audience, he stated that “the editor is manipulating the audience from the very first to the very last image. People want an emotional experience when they go to see a film, they want to be manipulated… so it’s very important we are aware of the power of that”. I found a way to apply this idea to a problem I had with the opening shot of scene 2, where Jamie comes into the house and takes off his hat and jacket. Our take of this dragged and overran massively, but it was the only shot I had of him coming inside, which was information important to the film. It was then that I remembered Hamilton describing the power of emotional manipulation on the audience, and I had the thought to briefly cut away to something else and then return to Jamie at a point much closer to the end of the clip, which manipulates the audiences sense of time to deliver a more streamlined sequence. I had b-roll footage of Beth sitting on the couch between takes, and after finding a short moment where she was staring in the direction of the door and appeared very angry, I had my emotionally impactful and manipulative cutaway. This brief insert primes viewers to dislike Beth, who’s sulky, dissatisfied demeanor evokes negative reactions from audiences, and makes them more invested in her psychological abuse of Jamie.
Week 7
As I was the editor, I had a reduced involvement in the casting of our two main actors, and the auditioning process was carried out by only the producer and the director. Instantly, they knew the male actor George was perfect for the character of Jamie, and although their first choice for the part of Beth dropped out, they quickly found Rebecca, a good replacement for the role. After our producer had secured all the necessary props and sent the actors their call sheets, we scheduled to film on the 22nd and 23rd of November.
Week 6
After we had a finalised script, we agreed it would be beneficial to test out our equipment and confirm we knew exactly what we were doing before our shoot. On the 6th of November, we booked out equipment and headed to the photography studio to practice. Our main concern was how we were going to light our shots, so we spent the majority of the time experimenting. We initially tried the conventional set up (with the key, fill and back light) which, despite its undoubtable glamour, didn’t quite match the broody atmosphere we had envisioned. Not only did this style look too polished and ‘nice’, but due to shooting in a small student house we didn’t have the space for 3 lights. Therefore, we opted to use just one LED panel and any practical lights we could find to create a more shadowy, dingy feel.
In this practice session, I also experimented with the Zoom F4 Audio Recorder/Mixer. I felt comfortable with the responsibility of editing, but the added pressure of doubling as a sound recordist made me feel apprehensive about filming, especially considering I’ve had no experience with this position! Finally getting hands-on experience to test it out is something that really boosted my confidence towards our shoot.
The Tentacle Timecode Kit was another aspect of audio recording that intimidated me, as I already experienced how this seemingly small piece of equipment can have much larger implications in post-production. During my boot-camp film, a problem with the Tentacles meant that the editor was unable to sync the visuals and audio, resulting in her painstakingly matching the soundwave patterns between the in-camera and microphone audio. This is clearly a problem I don’t want to happen again, so I made sure to practice using the equipment multiple times.
So, we had a script, a storyboard, a shot list and experience in using the equipment. It was now time to find the right actors and get to filming.
Week 5
In this week, we made a few revisions to the script, and started to plan and storyboard our shots. Although my role is centered around the post-production phase, it’s still important I participate in pre-production. Not only does this give me a deeper understanding of the director’s vision and aims, therefore improving the film’s cohesiveness, but it also allows me to plan aspects that will help me when I’m editing. For example, I made sure we planned a master shot for each scene, which would give me full coverage to cut back to in case some of our close-up shots didn’t come out as expected.
Week 4
This is the week we were first introduced to our projects, and were placed into groups of 4 based on the roles we chose. We ranked these roles (Director, Cameraman, Editor and Producer) from 1 to 4, and fortunately I was allocated my preferred role as the editor, which includes all aspects of the post production process, from sound engineering to colour grading. After completing our bootcamp film, I feel much more prepared for our longer final film. Even though I had the role of producer I still contributed to the editing process, which helped remind me of the skills I learnt while editing my two shorts last year.
Immediately after our roles were selected, our director explained to us his idea for the short film titled 20:05. The plot is fairly basic; Beth, a woman with a history of violence finally snaps and murders her boyfriend. What is unique about this film however, is that it’s told backwards. The opening scene acts as a narrative hook for the audience, who will now want to discover the circumstances that led to the character Jamie’s death. They are taken backwards past the fight, through the argument that caused it, and finally to Jamie talking to his friend Ben as he walks home, who warns him about Beth’s dangerous temper. This format works well with the 5-minute time limit we were allocated, as we could aim for a scene per minute, which also played into the time-related title of 20:05.