NBCUni 9.5.23

Category Archives: TV Series

Masters of the Air: Directors and DP Talk Shoot, VFX and Grade

By Iain Blair

World War II drama Masters of the Air is a nine-episode Apple TV+ limited series that follows the men of the 100th Bomb Group as they conduct perilous bombing raids over Nazi Germany and grapple with the frigid conditions, the lack of oxygen and the sheer terror of combat at 25,000 feet in the air. Starring Austin Butler and Barry Keoghan, it’s the latest project from Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman, the producing team behind Band of Brothers and The Pacific.

Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck

Ranging in locations from the fields and villages of southeast England to the harsh deprivations of a German POW camp, Masters of the Air is enormous in both scale and scope. It took many years and an army of creatives to bring it to life — such as directors including Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck and DPs including Jac Fitzgerald.

Here, Boden and Fleck (Captain Marvel) talk about the challenges of shooting, editing and posting the ambitious show. In a sidebar, Fitzgerald (True Detective) talks about integrating the extensive VFX and the DI.

After doing Captain Marvel, I guess you guys could handle anything, but this was still a massive project. What were the main challenges?
Anna Boden: We did episodes 5 and 6. I’d say for us, Episode 5 was a big challenge in terms of wrapping our heads around it all. Some of the prep challenges were very big because it’s really a long air battle sequence that takes up almost the entire episode, and we had limited prep and not a ton of time to do previz and work everything out ahead of time. Also, simultaneously, we were prepping Episode 6, which was going to take us on location and to a whole bunch of new spaces that the show had never been to before. Finding those new locations and doing both of those things at once required so much planning, so it was challenging.

How did you handle the big air battle sequence and working with the volume stage?
Boden: You don’t want to show up on the day and wing it. As filmmakers, sometimes it’s really fun to get on-set and block the sequence based on what the actors want to do. But you can’t do that when you’re shooting on a volume stage, where you’re projecting a lot of imagery on the wall around you. You have to plan out so much of what’s going to be there. That was new for us. Even though we’d worked on Captain Marvel and used greenscreen, we’d never used those big-volume LED stages before. It was a really cool learning experience. We learned a lot on the fly and ultimately had fun crafting a pretty exciting sequence.

I assume director Cary Joji Fukunaga and his DP, Adam Arkapaw, set the template in the first four episodes for the look of the whole show, and then you had to carry that across your episodes.
Boden: Yeah. They’d obviously started shooting before us, and so we were studying their dailies and getting a sense of their camera movements and the color palettes and the vibe for the show. It was really helpful. And our DP, Jac Fitzgerald, knows Adam pretty well, so I think that they had a close working relationship. Also, we were able to visit the set while Cary was shooting to get a sense of the vibe. Once we incorporated that, then we were on our own to do our thing. It’s not like we suddenly changed the entire look of the show, but we had the freedom to put our personalities into it.

And one of the great things about the point where we took over is that Episode 5 is its own little capsule episode. We tried to shoot some of the stuff on the base in a similar tone to how they were shooting it. But then, once we got to that monster mission, it became its own thing, and we shot it in our own way. Then, with Episode 6, we were in completely different spaces. It’s a real break from the previous episodes because it’s the midpoint of the season, we’re away from the base, and there’s a big shift in terms of where the story is going. That gave us a little bit of freedom to very consciously shift how we were going to approach the visual language with Jac. It was an organic way to make that change without it feeling like a weird break in the season.

Give us some sense of how integrating all the post and visual effects worked.
Ryan Fleck: We were using the volume stage, so we did have images, and for the aerial battles, we had stuff for the actors to respond to, but they were not dialed in completely. A lot of that happened after the shooting. In fact, most of it did. (Jac can probably help elaborate on that because she’s still involved with the post process for the whole show.) It wasn’t like Mandalorian levels of dialed-in visual effects, where they were almost finished, and the actors could see. In this show, it was more like the actors were responding to previz, but I think that was hugely helpful.

On Captain Marvel, so often actors are just responding to tennis balls and an AD running around the set for eyelines. In this case, it was nice for the actors to see an actual airplane on fire outside their window for their performances to feel fresh.

Did you do a lot of previz?
Fleck: Yeah, we did a lot for those battle sequences in the air, and we worked closely with visual effects supervisor Stephen Rosenbaum, who was integral in pulling all that stuff together.

What did Jac bring to the mix? You hadn’t worked together before, right?
Fleck: No, and we like her energy. She has experience on big movies and small movies, which we appreciate, and so do we. We like those sensibilities. But I think she just has a nice, calm energy. She likes to have fun when she’s working, and so do we, but she’s also very focused on executing the plan. She’s an organized and creative brain that we really appreciated.

Boden: I think that we had a lot of the same reference points when we first started talking, like The Cold Blue, an amazing documentary with a lot of footage that was taken up in the planes during World War II. Filmmakers actually were shooting up there with the young men who were on missions in these bomber planes. That was a really important reference point for us in terms of determining where the cameras can be mounted inside one of these planes. We tried as much as possible to keep those very real camera positions on the missions so that it felt as reality-based and as visceral as possible and not like a Marvel movie. We used some of the color palette from that documentary as well.

It was also Jac’s working style to go to the set and think about how to block things in the shot list… not that we need to stick to that. Once we get in there and work it through with the actors, we all become very flexible, and she’s very flexible as well. Our work styles are very similar, and we got on really well. We like our sets to be very calm and happy instead of chaotic, and she has a very calm personality on-set. We immediately hired her to shoot our next feature after this show, so we’re big fans.

Was it a really tough shoot?
Boden: Yeah. We started shooting in July and finished in October. That’s pretty long for two episodes, but COVID slowed it all down.

Fleck: I’ve never shot in London or the UK before, but I loved it. I loved the crews; I loved the locations. We got to spend time in Oxford, and I fell in love with the place. I really loved exploring the locations. But yes, there were challenges. I think the most tedious stuff was the aerial sequences because we had mounted cameras, and it was just slow. We like to get momentum and move as quickly as we can when shooting.

Even though this is TV, you guys were involved in post to some degree, yes? 
Ryan Fleck: Yes, we did our director’s cuts, and then Gary kept us involved as the cuts progressed. We were able to get back into the edit room even after we delivered our cuts, and we continued to give our feedback to guide the cuts. Typically, TV directors give over their cuts, and then it’s “Adios.” But because we worked so long on it and we had a good relationship with Gary and the actors, we wanted to see this through to the end. So we stayed involved for much longer than I think is typical for episodic directing.

Typically, on our films, we’re involved in all the other post departments, visual effects and sound, every step of the way. But on this series, we were less involved, although we gave notes. Then Jac did all the grading and the rest of the show. She kind of took over and was very involved. She’ll have a lot of insights into the whole DI process. (See Sidebar)

Anna, I assume you love post, and especially editing, as you edited your first four features.
Boden: I love post because it feels like you’ve made all your compromises, and now all you can do is make it better. Now your only job is to make it the best version of itself. It’s like this puzzle, and you have all the time in the world to do the writing again. I absolutely love editing and the process of putting your writing/editing brain back on. You’re forgetting what happened as a director on-set and rethinking how to shape things.

Give us some idea of how the editing worked. Did you also cut your episodes?
Boden: No, we hired an editor named Spencer Averick, who worked on our director’s cut with us. Every director was able to work on their director’s cut with a specific editor, and then there was Mark Czyzewski, the producer’s editor, who worked on the whole series after that. We worked with him after our director’s cut period. We went back into the room, and he was really awesome. We edited in New York for a couple of weeks on the director’s cut, and then we were editing in LA after that in the Playtone offices in Santa Monica.

What were the big editing challenges for both episodes? Just walk us through it a bit.
Boden: I’d say that one of the biggest challenges, at least in terms of the director’s cut, was finding the rhythm of that Episode 5 mission. When you have a long action sequence like that, the challenge is finding the rhythm so that it has the right pace without feeling like it’s barraging you the whole time. It needs places to breathe and places for emotional and character moments, but it still has to keep moving.

Another challenge is making sure viewers know where they are in every plane and every battle throughout the series. That ends up being a big challenge in the edit. You don’t realize it as much when you’re reading a script, but you realize it a lot when you’re in the edit room.

Then, for Episode 6, it was about connecting the stories because in that episode, we have three main characters — Crosby, Rosenthal and Egan — and they’re in three different places on three very separate journeys, in a way. Egan is in a very dark place, and Rosenthal is in a dark place as well, but he finds himself in this kind of palatial place, trying to have a rest. And then Crosby’s having a much lighter kind of experience with a potential love interest. The intercutting between those stories was challenging, just making sure that the tones were connecting and not colliding with each other, or if they were colliding, colliding in a way that was interesting and intentional.

How hands on were Spielberg and Hanks, or did they let you do your own thing?
Fleck: We mostly interacted with Gary Goetzman, who is Tom Hanks’ partner at Playtone. I think those guys [Spielberg and Hanks] were involved with early days of prep and probably late days of post. But in terms of the day-to-day operations, Gary was really the one that we interacted with the most.

Boden: One of the most wonderful things about working with Gary as a producer — and he really is the producer who oversaw this series — is that he’s worked with so many directors in his career and really loves giving them the freedom and support to do what they do best. He gave us so much trust and support to really make the episodes what we wanted them to be.

Looking back now, how would you sum up the whole experience?
Fleck: All of it was challenging, but I think the biggest challenge for us was shooting during COVID. We kept losing crew members day by day, and it got down to the point where everybody had to test every day and wait for their results. We would have crew members waiting three to four hours before they could join us on-set, so that really cut the amount of shooting time we had every day from 11 hours down to six.

Boden: Some days we’d show up and suddenly find out an hour into the day that we weren’t going to get an actor that we were planning to shoot with, so we’d have to rearrange the day and try to shoot without that actor. That was a big challenge.

Fleck: The great thing for me was how much I learned. Back in history class, you get all the big plot points of World War II, but they don’t tell you about how big these B-17s were, how violent it was up in the air for these guys. You think of the D-Day invasion when you think of the great milestones of World War II, but these aerial battles were unbelievably intense, and they were up there in these tin cans; they were so tight and so cold. I just couldn’t believe that these kids were sent into these situations. It was mind-boggling.

Boden: I also learned a lot through the process of reading the material and the research about the history of these specific people in the stories. But I’d say that one of the things that really sticks with me from the experience was working with this group of actors. That felt very special.

DP Jac Fitzgerald on Shooting Masters of the Air

Jac, integrating all the VFX with visual effects supervisor Stephen Rosenbaum must have been crucial.
Yes. When I started the show, I imagined that the majority of the VFX work would be done on the volume stage. But then I realized that he had a whole World War II airfield to create on location. Obviously, we had the tower structure for the airfield, and we had two planes, one of which was being towed. And it was all so cobbled together from the outside.

Jac Fitzgerald

The planes looked like they were complete, but they weren’t moving by themselves. They didn’t have engines in them or anything. What was interesting to me was the extent of the visual effects that Stephen had to do on the exteriors. We only had two plane bodies, but at any one time when you see the airstrip, there are 12 planes there or more. So there was a huge amount of work for him to do in that exterior world, which was actually as important as the VFX in the volume.

What about the DI? Where did you do all the grading?
It was predominantly in LA at Picture Shop with colorist Steven Bodner, who did the whole show. And because of the enormous amount of VFX, it was obvious early on that things were going to need to be done out of order in the DI.

At first, they thought that my two episodes [5 and 6] would be the first ones to have the DI, as Adam Arkapaw was unavailable to do his episodes [1 through 4] because he was working on another film. At the time they thought they would go in and do my episodes and start prepping and setting the look for episodes 1 through 4 as well. Then it became clear that the DI schedule would have to adjust because of the enormity of the VFX.

Stephen Rosenbaum spent a lot of time making the footage we’d shot and all the VFX worlds collide. I think he had an extraordinary number of people from vendors around the world involved in the project, so there was certainly a lot of cleaning up to do. We all did a lot of work on the look in the DI, trying to make it as seamless as possible. And then again, because episodes 1 through 4 needed so much VFX work, we did my episodes and then we did 7, 8 and 9, and then we went back to 1 through 4. It was certainly a lot of jumping around. I wish that we could have mapped it all from beginning to end, but it wasn’t to be.


Industry insider Iain Blair has been interviewing the biggest directors in Hollywood and around the world for years. He is a regular contributor to Variety and has written for such outlets as Reuters, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times and the Boston Globe.

Marco Valerio Caminiti

DP and Colorist Talk Look of The Serial Killer’s Wife

By Randi Altman

Paramount+’s The Serial Killer’s Wife, four-episode series, follows Beth, whose husband is arrested on suspicion of murder. Beth (Annabel Scholey) is certain it’s all a huge mistake — Tom (Jack Farthing) is the village doctor and a beloved member of the community. But as Beth and her husband’s best friend start looking into the accusations, they start questioning everything.

Marco Valerio Caminiti

L-R: Director Laura Way, DP Evan Barry (on phone) and colorist Marco Valerio Caminiti

The series, which is soon to be released in the US after premiering in the UK and Ireland, was directed by Laura Way, shot by director of photography Evan Barry and color graded by Marco Valerio Caminiti.

How early did you get involved in the series?
Marco Valerio Caminiti: I got involved soon before the shooting started through several online meetings. The DI team at Frame by Frame and I set up the dailies workflow together with director of photography Evan Barry and DIT Gianluca Sansevrino.

Did you create on-set LUTs? How did that translate to the final color?
Caminiti: At first, I developed a custom technical conversion LUT (ARRI Log-C to Rec. 709) for the first days of shooting. Later, when I started receiving the actual rushes, I made a custom LUT that helped bring us toward the desired look of the show. This LUT was derived from an LMT [Look Modification Transform], which I then used as a grading starting point in ACES.

Marco Valerio Caminiti

Evan Barry: Working with Marco and Gianluca to create these LUTs gave me great peace of mind that the intended look of the show would be implemented right from the outset. 

What did the director and DP say they wanted it to look and feel like? Did they provide a look-book?
Caminiti: Director Laura Way, Evan and I wanted to achieve a “crime/drama” look that would drive the audience through the mood of the show. At the same time, we did not want the grade to feel too stylized. Our goal was to have a nice level of contrast and color separation to avoid a bland, monochromatic result.

Generally, all the scenes in exteriors tend to go toward cold tones, but we kept a nice golden and soft tint for specific interior situations. I had received a lookbook to develop the LUT before shooting started, but Evan then brought some more references on the first day of our in-person grading sessions.

Marco Valerio Caminiti

Barry: It was important that the show’s look have a very grounded and naturalistic feel while still retaining a cinematic quality to complement our story. Through conversations with Marco and some shared references, both in preproduction and throughout the shoot, Marco did an incredible job responding to the rushes that were being sent through. And although our time in the grade was limited, I had great confidence in Marco. We’d had enough conversations that he knew instinctively what direction to go with each scene.

What was it shot on, and why was this camera package chosen?
Barry: We decided to shoot on the ARRI Alexa Mini LF paired with a set of Zeiss supreme lenses. We felt that this combination would give us the cinematic naturalistic look we wanted.

What were some of the biggest challenges of the shoot?
Caminiti: The biggest challenge was probably logistic in nature, considering that the editorial department (Element) were set up in Dublin, the ADR was done at Molinare in London, the VFX team from Alps Studios were in Turin, the DI and sound department from Frame by Frame were in Rome, and both Laura Way and Evan were based in Ireland.

Marco Valerio Caminiti

Even with everyone spread out, it all went quite smoothly. The collaboration between all these countries generated a unique combination of Italian influences (coming from the art, costumes and production design) mixed with British environments and landscapes.

Barry: I think these kinds of international co-productions are fantastic, as they broaden the scope of talent we can work with and bring different cultural influences together, which I think helps to raise the quality of the end result.

Was Evan Barry in the suite with you? The director? How did that help?
Caminiti: I had the pleasure to sit in the grading suite for a week with Evan to find the right direction for the show. A few days later, Laura also came to Rome to attend the grading sessions and review all four episodes. Even though we all got used to working remotely after the pandemic, I much prefer to have clients attend the grade, both for social and practical reasons.

Unfortunately, it was too complicated to have a session with Evan and Laura at the same time, but we managed to keep a good level of communication using review links to share the progress.

What system and color workflow did you use? Did you do any cleanups as well, or just color?
Caminiti: I graded the series using ACES in Blackmagic DaVinci Resolve, and I also had to deal with a couple of very minor cleanups. Since the TV series is a Paramount+ UK original production, we started to grade it in HDR (Rec.2020 PQ – P3 D65 limited), and later obtained the Rec.709 version using Dolby Vision analysis and trim passes.

What was your favorite part of the collaboration and look?
Caminiti: I feel lucky to have worked on this project. I studied in the UK at the NFTS (MA Digital Effects: Color) and worked at Warner Bros. De Lane Lea, so my favorite part of this collaboration is that I managed to bring my experience back to Rome with me, working on an international production from my own city and using skills from my two different backgrounds to achieve the look.

I know I can’t mention everyone, but I would like to thank post production manager Alessandro Pozzi, post producer Matteo Lepore, conformer Giorgia Petrazzini, finishing artist Paolo Viel, sound designer Sandro Rossi and producer Francesco Paglioli, who followed the whole Italy/UK/Ireland process.


Randi Altman is the founder and editor-in-chief of postPerspective. She has been covering production and post production for more than 25 years. 

NBCUni 9.5.23
Lessons in Chemistry

Lessons in Chemistry DP Jason Oldak Talks Light, Lenses and More

By Randi Altman

Jason Oldak is a cinematographer with almost two decades of experience across large- and small-scale feature films, episodic television, documentaries and numerous commercial projects. He recently shot episodes of Apple TV+’s Lessons in Chemistry, starring Brie Larson and Lewis Pullman.

Lessons in Chemistry

Jason Oldak

Oldak was nominated for the ASC award for Limited or Anthology Series or Motion Picture Made for TV for his work on Episode 7, titled Book of Calvin. We reached out to Oldak to talk about that particular episode and his other work on the show.

How early did you start on Lessons in Chemistry?
I was hired onto the team in early spring, but prep didn’t commence until midsummer. It’s always beneficial to join the team early and talk about the origins of the project. It was also quite helpful to discuss the process with my co-DP, Zack Galler, and our production designer, Cat Smith.

Cat had a plethora of images and colors she pulled to discuss her intentions and how the world would be built on the stages. That helped us to think about lighting and the design of the LUT. Zack and I shared our lookbooks from our respective interviews and found shared images. Moving forward, I knew we were on the same page with our visual intentions for the show.

Generally, when starting a show, there is a meeting with the studio to present a lookbook across all departments. As I mentioned, both Zack and I shared similar images in our own interview lookbooks that happened to end up in the presentation to the studio. Although many of our images had a period feel, nothing was forced or overly dialed-in. Our objective was always to find the right cinema glass to tell the story appropriately. Our lighting and our LUT would balance the palettes that our production design and costume design teams created.

What was it shot on? Why was it the right camera for the series?
We photographed the series on the ARRI Mini LF camera system along with TLS Canon K35 lenses. I love the ARRI camera. Its color science seems to react slightly better to skin tones and has a softness to the image compared to some of the other systems out there.

The camera is also small enough so that it never was an issue when mounting to cranes, remote heads or Steadicam. However, I really feel that the lens choice is your paintbrush when it comes to designing your visual language for your show. The TLS Canon K35 lenses, supported by our friends at Keslow Camera, are rehoused vintage glass that really accentuated the period we were after. We added a mix of atmosphere, and it was exactly the right recipe for the series.

 

Did you follow the look created in the pilot?
This show doesn’t necessarily have a pilot in the traditional sense. It was an eight-episode, straight-to-picture series for Apple TV+ based on the best-selling novel of the same name. Lessons in Chemistry tells the story of Elizabeth Zott’s journey. Each episode of the limited series tends to create a different emotional and physical stage in Elizabeth’s life, and that gave Zack Galler and me a jumping-off point for tone and the visual language for our particular episodes. Zack Galler photographed episodes 1, 2, 5 and 6, and I photographed episodes 3, 4, 7 and 8.

How did you make your episodes your own?
It all starts with the story you are telling. As a cinematographer, you have to be truthful to the pages you’re given. In Episode 103, we dealt with an immense amount of grief and sadness. It’s quite the departure from the first two episodes, where their love story began. Losing someone close to you creates a sensation that the world has stopped moving. It felt necessary to visually depart from the light and embrace the darkness and the stillness. There were a lot of scenes in the episode that needed the stillness to process the pain.

In Episode 104, we deal with birth and new beginnings. The episode narrates an initial discomfort, which eventually arcs to determination. Our lighting and camera work was distinctive of these emotions. We opted for some hand-held work and extreme shallowness with our focus during the scene when Elizabeth is giving birth to Mad. We used a device called the Deakinizer on the front element of the camera to create a dreamlike state, when Calvin enters her vision and guides her through the birthing process. We started that episode with a level of stillness, but by the end there was determination, and we created more camera movement to justify the change.

Episode 7, the penultimate episode, takes us back to the origin of Calvin and his side of our love story. This episode had a plethora of visual opportunities. Tara Miele, the director of episodes 7 and 8, and I created a unique look for young Calvin’s world in the 1930s. It felt appropriate to strip down the color since this is where Calvin’s life started.

Once we bridge the gap to adult Calvin and his scientific achievements, we contrast the world with warmth and color. Another opportunity that challenged our visual vocabulary was the correspondence between our man of science and our man of God. Tara and I created a cohesion of imagery that flowed back and forth, sometimes metaphorically, to the spoken word being said. We romanticized the influence each of them had on their worlds through camera movement and composition.

In Episode 8, we come full circle, finding focus and a clear path ahead. A big arc to the final episode is Elizabeth’s decision about her future at Supper at Six. We devised fluid camera moves, and our lighting felt clear and controlled. The number of shots we devised and how we introduced the show was important, as this would be the last time we step foot in the Supper at Six studio.

As we reveal Elizabeth’s new profession, we contrast this with a more simplistic approach to the set design, lighting and shot design. In one of the final scenes of the series, we are in the Zott residence, and Elizabeth is hosting a dinner party with all of the characters under one roof. She greets them as she passes through the house from room to room. We designed the camera to dance through this interaction with only one or two cuts. My intention was to have the audience feel as if they were as much a part of this POV and this journey with these folks as Elizabeth was. It felt like a perfect way to say goodbye to our show.

For Episode 7, there are different time frames and looks … young Calvin, Calvin as a chemist, Calvin in 1951. How did you differentiate those with the camera, lenses and lighting?
There is a distinction between where Calvin starts in his life and where he ends up. As a young man, he was stripped of a family and a home. But he had a drive and perseverance. As we start our story in the 1930s, we decided to strip the color away and create a cooler palette with blooming highlights.

As we transition to adult Calvin, who has become established through his scientific achievements, our world has more color and warmth to it. It felt important to give these two worlds their own characteristics. The way we moved through both time periods felt true to the style of our show. The lenses were the same throughout the series. The true distinction between the 1930s and ‘50s is the color palette of the two periods, a collaborative effort by camera, costume and set design.

You were nominated for your work on Episode 7. Can you talk us through that one?
First off, I want to say what a complete honor it has been to be recognized by my peers for the collaborative work my team and I were able to create. I strive for creativity and to have a passionate sensibility toward the work at hand. To be recognized with an award is the icing on the cake.

When thinking about what episode I should submit for the awards, Episode 7 spoke to me. I love how we go backward to tell the story from a perspective other than our main character’s. I love the unlikely friendship that Wakely and Calvin form via the written word and how their lives influence each other’s.

When I first interviewed for the job, I remember reading a scene involving Calvin at dawn, crewing on the open water. I had this immediate vision of what that would look like through the lens in my head. I really wanted to photograph it right then and there. In Episode 7, I was able to do that!

That first shot with young Calvin — was that one camera move until the classroom?
In general, our approach to camera movement in Lessons in Chemistry was striving to take, for example, three shots that you need in a scene and make them work as one. We tried to design blocking so that the camera moves from one piece to the next, acting more like a oner and telling the story in a non-cutty way. Our A camera operator, Mikael Levin, and B camera operators, Jan Ruona and Ilan Levin, were masters at this.

When Tara Miele and I discussed the opening sequence, we wanted to show off how Calvin had always been so curious about the world, and that took his attention away from his schooling. The opening shot was not one shot, but it was intended to feel like one. Because of the geography in front of the boy’s home location, we had to use a crane to tell our story. As Calvin is called out by the first nun, we telescope back, leading him to run around the corner and up the stairs. As he rounded the corner, we shifted our crane on a dolly track down the line with him, and as he ran up the stairs, the crane started to telescope forward, feeling as if we were running to class too! It was a game of measurements to see if we could achieve it, but thanks to key grip Adam Kolegas and his team, it was a success.

Once inside, we actually did the whole shot as one move on Steadicam. Alas, in the edit they needed to break it up with another shot midway through, but it still works. The intention was to tie the boy’s name, Calvin Evans, to his face at the very end of the sequence. We start on his feet as he enters the hallway and pull back, leading him.

We do a dance with the camera and wrap around the back of Calvin as he rounds the corner; we are now in follow mode as he approaches the class door. As he opens the door, we creep in behind trying to get to our seat before the nun turns around. As she says his name, we wrap around and reveal Calvin in the light, sitting in his chair. I loved the orchestration and the timing of that shot. It told the story in the most effective way possible. This was truly a collaborative effort with our operator, our director and me.

What about the crewing scene you touched on earlier?
Being on the open water and filming the actors crewing was one of the highlights of the show for me. It was such a tranquil and beautiful experience. We had a large pontoon boat that carried the crew and a 35-foot MovieBird crane with a camera on the end of it. We treated the row work like you would with a car-to-car sequence.

However, every cinematographer will tell you that their biggest fear is watching that sunset and knowing that they did not complete the work for the day. Our day on the water, shooting all of our row work for Episode 7 and Episode 8, was an extremely tight schedule. The plan was to shoot the row work on a lake in San Dimas, California, in the early part of December — a time of the year when the sun sets at 4:30pm, if you’re lucky.

We arrived way before the sun came up and had everything prerigged to get out on the water as soon as the sun was rising. Tara, our AD and I worked out a very specific timetable, so it left little room for error. In addition to our own water work, we also were tasked with shooting a portion of Episode 5’s row work that day and two scenes along the edge of the water, one being a lengthy dialogue scene in Episode 8. We had our work cut out for us. In the end, the light always seemed to be in the right place at the right time, and our team was on their A-game and knew exactly what needed to be done. The success is in the results!

What about the lighting at the lab and at Calvin’s house? It seems like the windows are the main light sources.
The term naturalistic lighting comes up a lot in contemporary cinematography, yet it doesn’t always seem successful in its final execution. I truly feel like this was one of the first shows where I got there.

We really strived to make it feel like the light was coming from our window sources or from a fixture that you can see on-camera in the interior sets. We augmented these frames with our own lighting, but just enough exposure to feel as if that practical was creating the luminance on the subject’s face. At times, it was about finding a source that was more of a ¾ back angle to the subject, and we would wrap that light subtly with atmospheric smoke and grip attire so that the lighting never felt heavy on the face. If we did bring units inside to help enhance the source of light, they were always used very subtly.

In the lab, we used a heavy number of lights outside of the set to sell daylight, and they also worked as the sun, pushing their way through the blinds to find the point we were lighting. However, we also rigged par cans above each window almost directly downward onto the blinds. The heat from those units would hit the blinds and carry into the room to really sell the hot California sunlight. It helped us light minimally in the room and be able to move throughout.

I can go on and on….

What was it about Episode 7 that you think resonated with your peers?
I am truly happy with all the work we did on Lessons in Chemistry. Each of my episodes was so unique, with various challenges and success stories. I really felt that my creative gears were constantly moving, and for me, that’s a dream job.

In regard to the selection of Episode 7, with most award shows, you select an episode to submit. I felt that Episode 7 showcased the most range in regards to my cinematography on the show. The episode allowed us to create a look unique to the 1930s, there was a range of new locations, we showcased a lot of physical activity in Calvin’s running and rowing, and we saw the perspective of the accident in a different light. Episode 7 felt the most diverse with my range of work.

What about the other episodes you shot? What was most fun or challenging about those?
In Episode 4, as Elizabeth gets more clarity, she decides to convert her kitchen to an industrial lab. The directors, Bert and Bertie [Amber Templemore-Finlayson and Katie Ellwood], and I created an elaborate number of shots, all designed to feel like one fluid movement of the camera to create the feeling of time passing.

The camera moves in and around the kitchen, with stitched edits in a few places, as the viewer watches the transformation unfold. Different characters come and go, building the passage of time. In the end, we land on Elizabeth and a vision of Calvin reminiscing about their past and their love for one another. The way they are both lit in this moment is one of my favorite scenes in the show.

They are gazing into each other’s eyes. As the viewer, you know this is in her head, but in this moment, I wanted it to feel real. We enhanced this feeling through dreamlike lighting on their faces. We do a slow dolly push into each of their faces as they talk about their pasts.

I truly love how we orchestrated that sequence. The scene had to be shot over several days because the art department had to change over the kitchen while we moved from sequence to sequence, so you can feel the kitchen changing and time passing. It was quite the undertaking but such a success in the end.

What about working with the show’s colorist? Were there on-set LUTs?
Ian Vertovec at Light Iron was our colorist for the series. He oversaw the dailies and was involved in each of our episodes for final color. This was my first time working with Ian, and he was wonderful, a true artist and talent. I consider us lucky to have had him on the show.

Zack Galler had a working relationship with Ian prior to Lessons in Chemistry, and since Zack went first out the gate, he sent some images to Ian in regards to building a show LUT. Ian looked at the images and immediately thought of the old AGFA film stock from the 1950s. It had a warmish quality, but with room for cool tones to pop through. He gave us a show LUT to work off of with those qualities in mind. It was a subtle LUT that complemented that soft 1950s color palette beautifully. Our DIT, Scott Resnick, was able to monitor the LUT based on our lighting and sets and make it work for the changing locations.

I was able to work with Ian in the final color for all of my episodes and had a great rapport with him. That stage of the process is always one of my favorites.

What haven’t I asked that’s important?
I truly had the best of both worlds on this show. I worked with three talented and artistically driven directors, who worked alongside me and prepped the heck out of these shows, pushing me to make great work for the screen.

As closely as I worked with our directors in prep, I was in full communication with my camera, grip and lighting teams to make images that we were all so proud of. Half the battle is hiring a talented team behind you that you can communicate your vision with, and it’s executed with ease. This team was a sensational bunch that understood the story and knew how to tell it in a compelling way.

Finally, I was in awe of our cast’s performances throughout the series. They brought their all on-set each and every day. They were so powerful and brought such talent to the frame. I am truly honored to be a part of the Lessons in Chemistry team.


Randi Altman is the founder and editor-in-chief of postPerspective. She has been covering production and post production for more than 25 years. 


Ted

Fuzzy Door’s ViewScreen Combines Live-Action, VFX in Real Time for Ted

Fuzzy Door Tech, the technology division of Seth MacFarlane’s production company Fuzzy Door, used its ViewScreen tool to transform production while making the new Ted television series, which is now on Peacock.

According to Fuzzy Door, Ted marks the first television show to film an animated lead character in real time alongside other actors thanks to the use of ViewScreen. The technology had a significant impact on the production, from allowing the entire crew to see Ted in real time while filming to capturing MacFarlane’s performance so he could act as Ted while simultaneously directing.

Ted“ViewScreen Studio was critical for planning shots and how the team approached filming. It allowed them to visualize the digital asset in real time and treat Ted like any other actor or live-action element. By removing the guesswork, ViewScreen transformed the creative process, which resulted in a faster turnaround time,” reports Faith Sedlin, president of Fuzzy Door Tech.

ViewScreen lets filmmakers integrate digital assets into their shots, in a sense making the invisible visible. On Ted, the ability to see the bear in real time let everyone understand the story and capture the right shots faster. “Filming with VFX components can be challenging because an essential part of the scene is left to the crew’s imagination. On Ted, using ViewScreen meant that everyone could see the composited scene, including the digital bear, in video village in real time,” says Brandon Fayette, chief product officer of Fuzzy Door Tech.

ViewScreen helped MacFarlane guide the actors to deliver their best performances because he could offer creative feedback based on a composited scene. Camera operators didn’t have to rely on eyeline tools, or a stuffed bear placed in the scene to estimate Ted’s position. Using these techniques is especially difficult when trying to capture shots where Ted is moving. ViewScreen let the camera operators see the complete scene, with Ted in their viewfinder, so they could frame shots more easily.

MacFarlane had multiple roles during the production of Ted. He was the co-showrunner and director, plus he had the added responsibility of acting as Ted. ViewScreen was a critical tool that he used to capture his real-time performance without a mocap suit, allowing him to move without constraints. ViewScreen captured his facial expressions without him needing to leave his monitors, so he could continue to direct scenes and watch the action. Overall, the process saved MacFarlane time and allowed the crew to capture the right shots in fewer takes.

“We did the motion capture work in real time on-set, which we did on the films as well, but it’s now a lot easier with ViewScreen Studio,” explains MacFarlane. “You can do motion capture work without having to wear a large mocap suit all day, which can be distracting and inhibiting when you’re also trying to act and direct. In the space of just 10 years, [ViewScreen] made it a significantly different experience when shooting the show.”

The ViewScreen family of products, which includes ViewScreen Studio and ViewScreen Scout, is a suite of production visualization tools that simultaneously integrates visual effects and the real world to accelerate television and film production. ViewScreen Studio is built for full-scale productions to let filmmakers visualize and animate an entire scene, including digital assets, in real time across multiple cameras. ViewScreen Scout is a real-time scouting app for the iPhone that lets people record how digital assets will look on location or on a soundstage — before filming begins.

ViewScreen Studio is compatible with the latest macOS (Sonoma) and Windows 11. It can be used with any cinema camera. ViewScreen Scout runs on iOS devices, including any iPhone 13 Pro/Pro Max and higher or any iPad Pro M1 and higher.

The ViewScreen suite of tools is available today for use on film and TV productions in North America. ViewScreen Scout is included with ViewScreen Studio and can also be purchased separately. Pricing for ViewScreen varies based on the requirements and complexity of the production.


The Other Black Girl Composer on Show and Style

EmmoLei Sankofa is a composer, producer, musician and artist whose original music can be heard on Hulu’s Three Ways, Season 3 of Starz’s Step Up: High Water series, Lizzo’s Watch Out For the Big Grrrls on Amazon and Shudder/AMC’s horror anthology film Horror Noire. Sankofa has also worked with top brands like Nike, Vans, BuzzFeed, Pandora, Kamala Harris for the People, Pulse Films and more via her creative audio company, Bèl Son.

The Other Black Girl

EmmoLei Sankofa

One of her more recent projects was the Hulu series The Other Black Girl. The series focuses on editorial assistant Nella (Sinclair Daniel) as she struggles with the experience of being the only Black employee at her company. When Hazel (Ashleigh Murray) is hired, she expects to find some shared experience and friendship in her, but instead Nella realizes the competition created between them taints their relationship, eventually leading to something darker happening. The series’ showrunners are Jordan Reddout and Gus Hickey.

Let’s find out more about her workflow on The Other Black Girl

What was the direction you were given for each of the score?
The word that stuck with me when discussing the creative direction with the showrunners and producers was “ambiguity.” This show rides a fine line between being a comedy, thriller, and horror so composing things that could maneuver between each of these genres, but also function in a way that doesn’t always clarify emotion or give away the storyline was key.

What is your process? How do you begin on a project? Is there a particular instrument you start on or is it dependent on the project?
My process is never the same. Different projects call for different creative responses from me. The spark can come from anywhere, any instrument. The key for me is just to always sit down and begin.

The Other Black Girl

Can you walk us through your workflow on this project?
It was really just a matter of sitting down and getting to it. Composing music is no different for me than going to the gym is for Lebron James. Every week, I had a few days to crank out music for the episode we were focusing on.

At the beginning, before we got into the flow of working on episodes week to week, I established the motifs that I’d be able to create variations for throughout. Once you have the meat of the music, it’s easy to create around it and vary things here and there to make musical moments special from episode to episode.

How would you describe the score?
My score for The Other Black Girl is a musical journey that weaves together playful, quirky percussive elements with an alluring combination of eerie and haunting synth textures, bolstered by my collaboration with the vocal ensemble Tonality, as well as the use of my own vocals.

The Other Black Girl

What instruments were used?
I used mallet percussion, other forms of nonmelodic percussion, distorted brass and strings, synth elements, bass guitar, many things. I played and performed everything except for the area where you hear the choir ensemble and the drum set material you hear on toms.

How did you work with the showrunners?
When it came to working with the showrunners on this project, and any project I work on, I was flexible. At the end of the day, this is a collaboration, and while my musical input is valuable and vital, what I do is a supporting element that is designed to elevate the narrative and visual performance. Showrunners have a vision before I am even considered, so I have to respect that and find the best way to nail it while maintaining what’s unique about my compositional voice and what I bring to the table. Communication is key.

More generally, do you write based on a project – spot, game, film, TV — or do you just write?
It depends. Every season and project are different. In general, I’m always following my instincts and leaning toward what’s appropriate at any given moment.

The Other Black Girl

How did you get into composing? Did you come from a musical family?
I got into composing by exploring my curiosity around music production. Film scoring is another conversation and came later when a college professor recommended that I investigate what it might look like to be a film/TV composer after he’d heard a class assignment I’d done.

I’ve been a musician all my life and come from a musical family, so my musical instincts and interests have been present since birth.

Can you name some other recent projects?
Project CC, Season 2 of Disney Launchpad shorts (Disney+) and Three Ways (Hulu).

Any tips for those just starting out?
For those just starting out, I’d recommend the following: Work and build with the people next to you, and rise together. Focus on the craft and getting a handle on what you do best. Strengthen your systems and processes while no one is checking for you. Be a pleasure to collaborate with, and always be an asset.


Doctor Who

Untold Creates CG Meep for Doctor Who Anniversary Special

BAFTA- and Emmy-nominated VFX and production company Untold Studios has worked with Bad Wolf to help bring BBC’s 60th anniversary series of Doctor Who to life.

Doctor Who‘s enduring popularity over six decades has been sustained by its ability to reinvent itself while remaining true to its core values of adventure, imagination and timeless storytelling. The 60th anniversary series continues this tradition with three special episodes that will leave Whovians of all generations on the edge of their seats.

Untold’s VFX team contributed 330 shots for the episode “The Star Beast,” with a focus on bringing to life the famous and enigmatic Meep character.

Doctor WhoUntold Studios VFX Supervisor Tom Raynor explains, “It was a total privilege to take on the first of the Doctor Who specials, kickstarting a new season of the iconic TV franchise and the eagerly anticipated return of David Tennant. The brief was all-encompassing, calling for a plethora of visual effects and SFX, from complex character work, CG environment builds and set extensions to massive battle scenes and highly complex FX sequences. This special is an example of costume and SFX being seamlessly integrated with high-end VFX in a sensitive and impactful way.

The Meep is an iconic character, well-known by fans of the early comic books. Because this was the character’s first screen appearance, it was extremely important that we got this right. The character posed a unique set of challenges, as it required both a full-CG approach for some shots and an augmented 2D approach to an actor in a costume for other shots.”

For the augmented 2D approach, Untold used the tracked geometry of its CG asset to drive a 2D spline warp/ST map-driven facial rig in Nuke. The rig had sliders to dial in or enhance a range of different facial expressions and emotional states and could modify the mouth performance to accurately match lipsync. Untold’s compositors used this rig in almost every Meep shot in the first half of the episode. Once The Meep turns evil, the team used a CG digital replica of the character, complete with fully simulated muscle/fat and hair systems.

Untold does most of its asset-building and rigging in Maya, with ZBrush and Substance for sculpting and texturing. From there comes look development and asset rendering in Houdini. Untold considered using USD and Karma for rendering at the start of this project but settled on Arnold due to time constraints. The studio has developed a collection of Arnold shading nodes and utilities for fur over the past few years, which made it particularly appealing for creating The Meep.

The studio thought it was important to respect the aesthetic and charm of the Doctor Who franchise along with the artistry of the costume-makers and SFX artists. Untold’s creators took great care to match The Meep’s range of movement to what was achievable for the costume to ensure a consistent look and a seamless, invisible transition between full-CG shots and augmented costume shots. Using a CG digidouble made it possible to greatly increase the emotional range of The Meep during the later sequences. It also allowed the Untold team to do things like dilate pupils, articulate finger and toe movements, and make The Meep run, which was a practical limitation of having an actor crouched down in a costume. Artists paid careful attention to the flow of every part of the groom, the subtle pigmentation changes of the fur and how it bent and flexed as it moved.

Untold Studios uses an ACES color pipeline, and the team worked at and delivered the final picture at 4K. All of the plates were shot on an ARRI Alexa Mini except for a handful of drone plates.

 

 


Quantum Leap DP Ana M. Amortegui on Setting the Look

By Randi Altman

The reboot of Quantum Leap was renewed for a second season and has started airing on NBC. This iteration of the show also follows a charming time traveler/scientist, Dr.  Ben Song, who lands in different times and situations in order to right a wrong.

The first and second seasons were shot by Colombian-born DP Ana M. Amortegui. Amortegui received a degree in electrical engineering before getting behind the camera, so the intersection of technology and creativity are not lost on her.

Quantum Leap

Ana M. Amortegui

Amortegui’s work spans narrative, music videos and documentaries and includes Resident Alien, Twenties, The Realm: Awakening, Suicide Machine and more. We reached out to her to talk about her work on Quantum Leap.

You worked on Season 1 of Quantum Leap and helped establish the look of the show? Please talk about that process.
We wanted to honor the original series and its essence while giving it a stylized look… a more modern take on the show. This is the continuation of project Quantum Leap, not a remake, so it needed to have its own visual style.

Our show takes place in the past and present, but we also have gone to the future, which gives us the opportunity to be very creative with every episode; we can take risks and be bold and change things up each time. Everything is permitted in order to support the story, though there are always some visual elements that tie the story together no matter which time period we are in — the present group, Magic, Jenn, Ian, Addison or in the leap with Ben. The show is very emotional, so we use a lot of extreme close-ups. We want to give the audience intimacy with our characters, connect them with the story.

We only have one standing set: the headquarters. It is the only set we share from one episode to another, so the look of it and the camera work needs to be very special and unique so it feels like the same show in every episode. The studio and showrunners wanted to step away from the classic cyan look in sci-fi and have a warm look, so that’s what we did. In terms of lighting, it has very rich amber tones, but because there are so many screens in the design from our production designer, the room has hints of cyan as well. It’s a nice mixture.

I think the headquarters look has evolved so much through these two seasons, but it is a versatile set that can be shot in many ways. Being dynamic with the camera movement is very important, as we convey a lot of information and key elements that way. We need to keep the audience engaged, and the camera moves most of the time in that space.

What about for the time travel?
For the leaps, we want to make sure viewers know where Ben is in terms of the world he is in. Because of this we use extreme wides, mostly with movement, so the audience can get a sense of the place and time period where the leap is taking place. Each leap is different in the level of emotion, drama and task, so the visuals change every time to serve the story. We often find ourselves changing lenses or using different pieces of equipment, depending on the leap. It can be different every time because a lot goes on in every leap, but what makes it clearly the same show from episode to episode is the tone, the mood, the same extreme close-ups. We also use POVs a lot because we want the audience to feel like they are going through what Ben is going through, what it’s like to be in his shoes.

There is a look that we try to follow, but nothing is set. We always try to support the world, the stories and our characters with our lighting and camera.

Did the look change/evolve in Season 2?
The only real change visually has been the headquarters, and it’s not completely different. It didn’t really need to change, but it has evolved as time passed. We are constantly on that set, so we need to be innovative and creative because we want to show the space in a different way each time. We are lucky the art department did a beautiful job designing it; the set is big and very versatile, and we have tons of screens and LED lighting that helps us change the colors depending on the scene. So it is never the same, but it always has the stamp of the QL headquarters… it has the tone and mood that is our show.

Are you creating different looks each time Ben jumps to a different time period?
In a way, yes. The most important thing is to support the story. With all the different periods, all the sets and locations that change from leap to leap, the stories, the actors… a lot is different, so our visual approach has to change as well.

In my case, when I get the script and find out the time period he will be leaping into, I think of a color that takes me to that time period and that place. From there I start researching the place, what kind of important events have happened there. I research artwork, music, photography. I look for textures and colors that are unique to the time and place, and from there I create, I get inspired, and I make the visual part of the leap my own.

It is good to be period-appropriate, but a lot of times (with everybody’s agreement) I will take some liberties to make the show unique cinematography-wise. For example, in Episode 3 of Season 1, Ben leaps into a boxer in the ‘70s. In that time period, the boxing rings and the lights around them were tungsten color, white light. But I wanted to do something different, insert some color, so I used fixtures that were time-appropriate but put color on them by using red, yellow and blue gels. Again, that wasn’t the case in the ‘70s, but I thought it made such an important moment in the story more special. The beauty of this show is that we can be very creative, take risks and be bold in our cinematography choices.

How did you and the showrunners pay homage to the original series?
The essence of the show is the same as the original. This is a show about doing right where once it went wrong, about the meaning of home, where and what home is to you. It is a show about love and humanity. Visually, this version is very different; it has its own look, but I think once you are on the leaps, the two shows can feel very much the same.

How early did you get involved on Season 2?
We didn’t have a break between the two seasons. I finished shooting the Season 1 finale, and I was prepping the next episode for Season 2 immediately. We did it that way because we knew the strike was coming, so we worked around the clock to be able to shoot as much as we could. It was an easy transition and has felt more like a very long Season 1. The story is taking some big turns and gets more complex as Season 2 keeps going, but cinematography-wise, we kept things the same.

What about the color and working with the colorist? What are some notes that you exchanged?
I love doing the color in the episodes. We are so lucky to have had two amazing [Picture Shop] colorists, Paul Allia, who worked on part of Season 1, and Chris Boyer, who took over and finished Season 1 and is doing Season 2. They elevate the work we do on-set. A colorist makes sure that the color scheme we’re going for translates into every shot. In my case, I think they both learned my sensibility, what I like, the way I use colors, and they enhance that. They make everything better.

Chris gets still frames of the work we do on-set as a reference. I work with a DIT, who sits with me in a tent and helps with technical things, such as having the right exposure and settings on the camera. He also helps me with the color on-set. It is a much simpler color process. There are limits to what we can do on-set, but with that, Chris has a reference of what I want to accomplish and starts color grading and color correcting frame by frame for the episodes.

Each time, I think of a color for every episode and base my look on it. I go into production knowing I want an episode to have a warmer feel, or cool or a certain hue. For example, in that boxing episode I mentioned earlier, it was yellow to me, so with my DIT on-set, we would add yellow to the shadows or the highlights and find a color that I loved. We gave it a yellowish feel because, to me, that’s what Vegas feels like. As I mentioned earlier, only the headquarters maintains the same look. Sometimes it is more amber than cyan and sometimes it is more cyan than amber. But in a way, it always looks consistent.

You shot on Sony Venice. Why was that the right camera for the job?
I have been shooting with the Sony Venice for my past three episodic shows. I love how the Venice has a wide color range and captures a very realistic, true image, with natural skin tones and vivid colors. I love that it has a dual ISO. We have to move so fast and the higher ISO really comes in handy. The three shows I have shot with the Venice have all been very different, so the lens choice has been different as well. But because of the camera’s sensor, I can choose almost any lens, which is amazing. I don’t have to sacrifice my creativity or my vision.

Quantum Leap

Ana M. Amortegui

What about lighting?
We use a lot of LED fixtures, and it is great. I don’t think what we do with lighting on the show could have been done 30 years ago in the original show. It would have taken too much time and cost a lot of money. The technology has changed so much. It has made it better for us in the sense that you can really go for it. I can have any color I want in a matter of seconds.

In the headquarters, most of our practical lights are LED, and that’s what allows us at time to make the set more amber and other times more cyan. I just change the lights to create a different feel. I use a mix of the normal tungsten units and HMI, but we do a lot with the LED. A lot of these LED units are wireless, are lighter than our traditional lights and can fit in tight spaces. They are a real advantage.

Any happy accidents happen on-set?
More than happy accidents. I don’t recall one right now, but if people only knew how sometimes we end up shooting something on a one- or two-wall set, or the number of times we cheat the same location for something else. It is truly movie magic, the make-believe aspect of it. You have to make it work — the way you shoot it, the way you light it, the way they design or dress a set is what makes it all possible. This industry is beautiful in that sense.

Are there some scenes that stick out as challenging?
I think the biggest challenge we have is the time. We have to do a feature film in eight days, and these are complex stories we tell, with lots of action and drama. So in a way, we’re always challenged to do our best work against the clock. For example, last season in Episode 14, we were shooting at the battleship USS Iowa at Long Beach. Ben leapt into a naval commander. The ship is supposed to be in the middle of a mission at sea, but we couldn’t sail the battleship because it is docked. It is actually a museum, and everything around it is buildings, the port and container docks.

We needed to figure out how to shoot it without seeing all that. We could do some VFX, but not for every shot, so we had to do most of our shots at low angles to avoid the backgrounds. It was very challenging. For the exterior shots, we couldn’t always work with the sun. We couldn’t move the ship, so it became a challenge. We scheduled the scenes as best we could, but we always had to sacrifice something. Another big challenge on that episode was that the inside of the ship has very tight and narrow spaces. We had to bring every piece of equipment by hand. We shot at the bottom of the ship at the bridge, so every single crew member had to bring something four floors down. It was a thing, but at the end of the day, we always work it out, and some of these challenges make it better.

We shot in Egypt in Season 2. It was amazing but still a bit challenging because we worked with an all-local crew. They work very differently — the culture is different; the language and communication are different. We had to shoot so much in few days, so it was a bit crazy, but I think if it hadn’t been that way, it wouldn’t have been so special. I loved my experience in Egypt and its people. I love the Egyptian crew.

Looking back, would you have done anything different?
There is always room for improvement, for doing things better. I have given my heart to the show, I have been there from day one and I have done everything I can to make this show unique. A lot of things go wrong or change or don’t come out always the way you envision, but the most important thing is to be flexible, to adapt and to keep going and keep learning from the experiences that come along.

If I could have done something different, I would have wanted more time at the beginning to do more camera and lighting tests. I would have liked more prep time before shooting the pilot to really dial things it, but we just didn’t have it. We had to go. But the beauty is that we did it, and we keep going, trying new things, evolving, taking risks, sometimes failing and a lot of times succeeding.

Finally, any tips for young cinematographers?
I would say that you always have to keep going. When you are passionate about what you do, when you do something in the name of love, it will always work out. You don’t have to know how, you just have to show up and put in the work and take it day by day, step by step. We often think that if we don’t get this show or that project, then all is lost. There is a lot of rejection, but at some point, life comes along and shows you that there are way more things possible than you could ever imagine, so always keep going.

Look up the people you admire, learn from them, see what they do or have done to get them to where they are. Their way could possibly be your way. Mostly because if they can do it, you can too.

I always say, “Shoot it like it is your last one” because no shot, no scene, no lighting setup would ever be the same. You have only one chance to give it your all. Every time you step foot on a set, think about the amazing opportunity that you have to do what you love. Take it because after that, it won’t come back. The next setup will be completely different, the next day will be another one. My advice is to leave the set knowing that you did your best. And don’t take things for granted; you are so blessed to be living your passion, so focus your attention on that, and live it fully.


Randi Altman is the founder and editor-in-chief of postPerspective. She has been covering production and post production for more than 20 years. 

Podcast 12.4

Meet the Artist Podcast: Dan Dome, Late Night‘s AD/Lead Editor

NBC’s Late Night With Seth Meyers came on the air almost 10 years ago, and there from the start was Dan Dome, who is the show’s associate director and lead editor. After heading out to LA to work on The Tonight Show With Conan O’Brien and Conan on TBS, this native New Yorker found his way back to New York and the world of editing comedy, as he helped launch Late Night. We recently spoke to him for the latest episode of our Meet the Artist podcast.

Dome took what he learned while working on Conan and adapted that workflow for Late Night. “I was pretty confident that I knew best practices for workflows and had to set up a file system within our SAN environment. Most of the entertainment shows, like this one, are either Premiere- or Avid-based, and we went with Premiere.”

The show is recorded live to tape, says Dome. “There is a multi-channel ingest server that records all the camera ISOs to the SAN, the graphics team drops in the graphic elements that build the show for the various segments, like the over-the-shoulders or animated lower thirds. Once the show starts, I’m pulling files into Premiere, and I’m editing as the show is happening because we are time sensitive. It’s a really intense two- to three-hour period of work.” After that Dome is on call up until air, just in case. And one benefit of workflows changing during COVID is that Dome can either do the work from his home studio or head into the office.

You could say Dome is built for this type of work. His dad is Art Dome, a long-time linear editor who introduced him to the love of post production. After watching his dad work, and spending time at post houses watching the workflows develop, Dome landed on editing and hasn’t looked back.

So join us for our latest podcast, and enjoy this conversation between Dome and postPerspective’s editor-in-chief Randi Altman, in which they discuss his start in the business, the changing world of post and editing for the funny.

 

Podcast 12.4

Only Murders in the Building Editor Shelly Westerman Talks Workflow

By Iain Blair

Created by Steve Martin and showrunner John Hoffman, Hulu’s Only Murders in the Building stars Martin, Martin Short and Selena Gomez as three New Yorkers with a shared interest in true crime podcasts. They become friends while investigating suspicious deaths in their affluent Upper West Side apartment building and producing their own podcast about the cases.

Only Murders

Shelly Westerman

Recently renewed for a fourth season, the Emmy-nominated show features the work of editor Shelly Westerman, whose credits include Nora Ephron’s You’ve Got Mail and Julie & Julia, HBO’s The Wire and American Crime Story: The Assassination of Gianni Versace. She was an ACE and BFE nominee for her editing on Only Murders in the Building, Season 2.

I spoke with Westerman, who has an Emmy nomination for her work on Versace, about the challenges and workflow.

What’s your collaboration with John Hoffman like?
We start very early on… when we first get the scripts. Then there’s casual conversations between him and the editors, about what’s coming, and then there is a full schedule of meetings. We do a concept meeting with the production designer and costumer designer and all the departments, which allows us to get an idea of the episodes. Then we have a separate meeting with the directors, editors and John, with a lot of discussion about how each scene is going to play out. We also listen in on all the production meetings so we can figure out the logistics of how the episode is going to go down.

All of those components give us a really good idea of what we’re stepping into, and once we get the footage, we go through the process of the editor’s cut and the director’s cut. Then we send it out to John and EPs Dan Fogelman and Jess Rosenthal to get their feedback, and then we start our one-on-one work with John to dig into the episode.

He’s on-set or watching on a monitor in his office, so he’s very familiar with the material. He and I developed a relationship in Season 2, so we were more prepared for Season 3. The editors knew his likes and dislikes. We’d often prepare alternative sequences to have ready to show him, so there’s a lot of background prep work going into the actual work process with him. He’s usually very busy shooting, so it’s late at night or on the weekends when we get time with him during production.

How many episodes have you cut on the show?
I began on Season 2 and cut Episodes 2, 5, 8 and 10. I also cut Episodes 2, 5, 8 and 10 on Season 3. And I got co-producer credit on Season 3.

Did that involve a lot of extra work?
It did, but it was good since I have a side of my personality that serves me well with the work. And coming from feature films, where editors are very much involved in the whole post process from start to finish, it was a bit of a shock when I transitioned to TV, where you have a much bigger post staff that takes over some of those duties. So it was more work, but it was worth it to be involved with the process and be able to see things through.

What were the main challenges of editing this show?
The hardest part is always balancing the comedy with the dramatic and the more poignant emotional moments without getting lost in them. We have a great team of collaborators, like composer Siddhartha Khosla, who always has my back. I might cut a scene and use some really dramatic music. Then I’ll show Sid and he’ll go, “Shelly, we’ve got to pull that back. Let the actors do their thing.” And he’s usually right… but sometimes he’s not, and I love that back and forth. It’s the same with [re-recording sound mixer] Mat Waters, who’s in charge of our sound department. I’ll show him something and ask for his opinion, and if we need some texture in the background, he’ll jump in with some sound effects. It’s also about our core trio of actors and making sure we’re focusing on them and tracking their relationships.

What was the most difficult scene to cut and why? And how involved is John in the problem-solving process?
It’s been very interesting because. John’s a great showrunner in that he also thinks like an editor, and he’ll almost always patch a difficult cut.

I was having trouble with a cut in Season 2 in a scene with Steve Martin and Shirley MacLaine. The rhythm wasn’t right, and I couldn’t figure it out. Sure enough, he looked at it and said, “Everything’s great about the scene except that one cut,” and it was the cut I was struggling with. He suggested trying a few more frames on Steve’s side of the cut. I did that, and it was perfect. It’s so fun to be free, knowing that if something’s not OK as is, you’re going to work on it together. That alliance you build with someone who sees things the same way you do is really special.

Another example is Episode 10, the finale of Season 3. It was quite challenging because we had to find a way to tell the story visually, and there was a lot of intercutting between Martin Short and Paul Rudd’s characters, which was very tricky. We had Paul for the entire song sequence, and he shot with Meryl Streep for two months before we shot the scene, as he had to leave. Then we shot the whole thing with Marty and then had to figure out how to match the cuts. In addition, we had to trim out some of the song for time, which affected our storytelling and where people were geographically.

I assume you must have used a lot of temp sound?
Yes, and we chose scenes very early on for Sid. He starts composing while we’re still shooting. If we had a longer schedule or more time, he might not get the episode until a director’s or producer’s cut is ready, but since we move so fast, he’s often doing sketches of scenes and writing stuff very early on.

Now we have a lot of his music stored, so we can go and pull from old cues and edit those together to give us some idea. He’ll give us his score material in stems, so sometimes I’ll cut and patch, take a piano from here and woodwinds from there to create a temp.

Did you use any temp VFX shots?
Yes. We had an on-staff VFX artist, Josh Bryson, this season, who helped us with temps in addition to our VFX editor. Our assistants do great temps too. Our VFX editor did some of that technical work and also managed all the VFX shots. Our main VFV vendors were Molecule, who did the bulk of the work, and Ingenuity. We also had Atlanta VFX in Atlanta and AB Studios in India.

Tell us about the post workflow and the editing gear you used.
The show’s shot on the Sony Venice 6K at 1:85. Pacific Post was our fabulous Avid vendor. We used Avid 2018 with Nexis storage, and we were fully remote using Jump Desktop. We reviewed cuts using PacPost.live, which is similar to Evercast.

Picture Shop processed our dailies in New York City, then sent them to LA for color timing. Our media was transcoded to Avid DNxHD 36. Dailies media was pushed to our Nexis storage. All final color timing was done in LA by colorist Timothy Vincent. We used Formosa for sound, and Mat Waters and Lindsey Alvarez were our sound mixers.

How would you sum up the whole experience?
It’s so much fun. John always brings such a sense of joy to it all. And I’d previously worked with Payton Koch and Peggy Tachdjian — the other editors this season — on other shows, so we had a great shorthand. The show was just renewed, so we’re all excited about Season 4.


Industry insider Iain Blair has been interviewing the biggest directors in Hollywood and around the world for years. He is a regular contributor to Variety and has written for such outlets as Reuters, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times and the Boston Globe.

Geofrey Hildrew on Setting Editing Tone for Netflix’s Painkiller

Editor Geofrey Hildrew, ACE, has cut many episodics, including the upcoming Ryan Murphy show American Sports Story, Carnival Row and The Walking Dead. One of his most recent projects was editing Netflix’s Painkiller, which is a fictionalized retelling of the origins of the opioid crises, including the Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma. It’s based on the book Pain Killer by Barry Meier and the New Yorker Magazine article “The Family That Built an Empire of Pain” by Patrick Radden Keefe.

Geofrey Hildrew

We reached out to Hildrew to talk workflow on the pilot, Episode 3 and Episode 5.

You cut Episode 1, essentially setting the tone for the series. How did you work with the showrunner to get this right?
One of the most unique aspects of the show is that the tone is constantly shifting. At times it can be devastatingly heartbreaking. At others, it becomes so heightened that we begin to question, “Did this/is this really happening?” Tonally, that’s an extremely broad canvas. We always had to question, “Are we being true to the story we’re trying to tell?”

Peter Berg is a masterful filmmaker – he’s a feature director, a documentarian and an actor (among other things). When we first started receiving dailies, it was immediately clear that this was going to be something different. Pete really used those different skill sets to give us some nontraditional and unique material. When he’d shoot a scene, he’d constantly play with shooting styles, improvisational techniques and even music to get to the emotional and dramatic truth of each moment.

As you can imagine, especially in television, this isn’t a traditional way of covering scenes. I remember some early moments looking at dailies and feeling a little uncertain about how to approach the material… until the lightbulb moment happened. Pete called one day and said, “Be nontraditional. Be experimental. Be surprising. Be Fearless.” That became our mantra in the cutting room, and it opened the floodgates for creativity.

No two episodes are alike, and that’s one of the things I adore most about this series. Episode 1 created some unique challenges: There are a lot of characters to introduce, and we tried to introduce each in a memorable way. We had a nonlinear timeline, not only jumping between past and “present,” but also needing to service each of those aforementioned characters. Additionally, we needed to introduce a lot of bold, stylistic techniques, which we’d use increasingly throughout the series, in a way that the audience could understand.

There is a lot of information and backstory in Episode 1. We needed to make this digestible so that it was simultaneously respectful of the subject matter and also entertaining. We wanted to create an experience. One technique Pete would often use while directing was to play source music on-set to help set the mood and atmosphere. That’s something I latched onto very quickly because it helped me get inside his head. It was an insight into how and what he was feeling on-set at that particular moment and what he was trying to convey with his material. Music became an important aspect of the show — not just the source cues we used but the wonderful score that Matt Morton composed for us.

Another breakthrough was the use of found and stock footage. There are some crucial moments throughout the series when we used that footage to help us emphasize key moments. An example of this technique in Episode 1 is the pleasure/pain montage. We went through many iterations of that sequence, some of which pushed the boundaries with extreme visuals. But that was the joy of working with Pete. He wasn’t afraid to hit that breaking point and sometimes go beyond it to see where we could take the material. And when we pushed things as far as we could, Pete had great instincts for pulling the pendulum back toward a happy medium that was evocative, experiential and best served our story.

Can you describe the pacing?
The pacing was always on our minds. Because we were playing with varying stylistic techniques throughout the series, we were constantly modulating the pacing. It changes, sometimes rather dramatically, throughout the series. With every scene, we first asked ourselves, “What do we want the audience to experience in this moment?” Emotion almost always took priority when approaching a scene. And our pacing and cutting patterns always evolved to service that.

There always has to be a reason to make a cut. Like any dramatic story, there are plenty of quiet moments… sometimes we’d let scenes play out in one-ers, and we’d want to live with the characters as events unfold. Other times we’d get quite aggressive with cuts, and an intimate scene might be purposefully nonlinear or cut like an action sequence. It was always about aligning the audience with the story arc of each character in an experiential way.

Because we were working with multiple storylines, I think we had a little more latitude to take some of these big swings. We’d examine how late we could get into a scene. How early could we get out? Executive producer Eric Newman once described the show as being shot out of a cannon. And that feeling is something very deliberate because I think it represents, in a very real way, the trajectory of the OxyContin epidemic. This all started and snowballed very quickly, and the epidemic was out of control before most people knew what hit them. I hope the pacing of the show emulates that sensation as it continues to build.

Did any of that change through the series, especially as the story progresses and becomes increasingly uncomfortable? It feels like the editing and presentation of the material mirrors the discomfort and puts the audience in each character’s mindset.
Since we’re following multiple storylines, each one evolves at its own pace. And there’s a good reason for that – each character has a different entry point to the story and their experience with OxyContin. I think it’s cool that we get to examine our story from so many points of view. On one side, we meet Edie (Uzo Aduba) as the reluctant storyteller, sharing her involvement with the epidemic.

As she begins telling her story, the cutting is much more traditional and deliberate. She doesn’t even know what OxyContin is. But she’s about to find out. As her investigation begins, her investment in the story and the toll it takes on her becomes more intense, so the pacing evolves to reflect that experience. By the end of Episode 3, the cutting is quite intense as we start to understand the real psychological impact this is all having on her. It’s like a form of PTSD.

This is also the case with Glen Kryger’s (Taylor Kitsch) story. In many ways, he’s the emotional heart of the show. We meet Glen and his family having an ordinary day at work. He, too, has no idea what OxyContin is. But his experience with it soon becomes more intimate, and things quickly escalate. So does the cutting. I think, more than any other story in the show, the editing style evolves most as we follow Glen. I don’t think I’m spoiling anything by saying Glen becomes an addict. And as we follow that trajectory, our style changes. What does it feel like to take OxyContin for the first time? What does it feel like to become dependent on it, to start going through withdrawal? The cutting gradually evolves to reflect that.

In Episode 3, the cutting steps up to a new level. There’s a sequence where Glen is really beginning to feel the effects of withdrawal while brushing his teeth and making breakfast for his family. We really wanted to put the audience in Glen’s shoes. What does that elevated state feel like when you want to crawl out of your skin? The cutting and sound here are all very disorienting, even cacophonous, to help you feel that heightened sense of tension and anxiety. This further evolves in Episode 5, when Glen is deeper in his story. Glen is now on a mission to acquire OxyContin, no matter what the cost. Accordingly, his scenes are cut much more in the style of an action movie – because that reflects his emotional state. He’s a man with a very specific goal in mind, and that’s how we want the audience to experience it.

On the other side of the coin, we have the story of Purdue Pharma. The Purdue drug reps are introduced through Britt Hufford (Dina Shihabi), who ends up recruiting Shannon Schaeffer (West Duchovny). Britt is already deep into the “story of Oxy” as we meet her, but Shannon is playing catch-up. Accordingly, the cutting is very fast-paced to reflect that aspect of Shannon’s journey. She’s thrown in headfirst; we’re all catching up just like her.

Finally, we have Richard Sackler (Matthew Broderick), who is at the center of this whole thing. There’s a sort of whimsical style to the way his scenes are cut early on. He is the story; he’s not catching up to it. And maybe that also says something about his state of mind. Richard had a very complicated relationship with his uncle, Arthur Sackler (Clark Gregg). We see some interactions between these two characters in rather unexpected ways. And as that relationship develops, so does the cutting style to show Richard’s attitude toward Arthur.

Richard had a vision and had a singular focus on executing that vision. That whimsical style evolves to help portray what his emotional state of being might have been. In Episode 3, he gives a grand “blizzard of the century” speech. It builds in intensity, like an avalanche, using some stock footage as accents to help illustrate the intensity of his state of mind. It’s over the top and surprising at times.

Episode 5 and the Miami sequence are sort of where the story builds to its apex – it’s a fever dream of insanity, where all our stories finally collide in devastating ways. This was quite a balancing act as we checked in with each of our main characters. It’s a lot to keep track of, trying to best convey their emotional states while a party is happening around them. It’s over the top and decadent, yet tragic, heartbreaking and emotional at the same time.

Something that starts as good fun becomes utterly grotesque. It took a lot of work to get this right, but I’m very proud of what we accomplished here. Despite all the “noise” that is Miami, I think we found a way to cut through all that as we shift focus toward Shannon and Glen. Both characters have tremendous arcs in this episode. There’s so much more I’d love to talk about here, but I don’t want to give away any spoilers.

What about maintaining clarity in the interweaving narratives and timelines for the audience as the story unfolds in a nonlinear and nontraditional way?
As we began work on Painkiller, we had a lot of conversations about how we would maintain clarity.

Throughout my career, I’ve worked on multiple projects with non-traditional narratives. One example is a show called Once Upon a Time for ABC, where I edited all seven seasons as well as directed. Tonally, that show couldn’t be more different than what we’re doing on Painkiller, but it gave me a lot of confidence handling many characters over interweaving storylines.

Edie’s deposition was the through line that kept us grounded. Beyond that, we’re hopping around in time and place quite a bit. We tried multiple techniques in early versions of the cuts, oftentimes experimenting with on-screen graphics. But they never felt right. As we continued to revise the cuts, we often felt they got in the way. The time we spent reading graphics and banners distracted us from the experience of the show. So gradually, we started removing them. When we started screening early cuts for friends and family, something surprising happened. We received a lot of early feedback from test viewers that they were so engrossed in the story that they were not having trouble keeping track of the timelines. This was a big victory for us.

You used jarring, aggressive cuts and asynchronous footage to show the progression of the opioid crisis and the toll it takes on individuals. Can you discuss?
I think I’ve discussed this quite a bit in previous answers, but yes. It was always our desire to create an experience — to best use our cutting style to create an emotional connection between our characters and the audience. There’s a moment I haven’t talked about in Episode 3 when Shannon is out visiting a doctor’s office and witnesses, for the first time, two people taking drugs inside a car. This was a big moment for us. Again, we wanted to create an experiential moment. Briefly, we break from Shannon’s POV and move inside that car to be with the drug users. How would we show that?

Pete said he once heard someone describe the feeling of taking heroin as “warm honey,” so we worked to achieve a visual language that might convey that feeling. I think what we came up with is quite evocative. There’s nothing literal about the moment; it’s all visually based. That was something we designed in editorial. Later, in Episode 5 (during the Miami sequence), there’s another sequence with the girls in a bathroom using OxyContin. Since we had already established a visual language for this, we tried to replicate that same feeling there – this time with a character who we’ve come to care about.

How often was the showrunner looking at your cuts? Were you also showing cuts to the other editors, or did you all work separately?
Almost daily. We had an extremely collaborative editing process on this project. During dailies, Pete trusted us to explore and experiment with the footage as much as we could. Be fearless, he said! Once we started reviewing completed cuts, we moved from our home cutting rooms into Pete’s offices. He’d be in editorial most days with his dog, Esso. Eric Newman (Narcos), who I had previously collaborated with on the Netflix series True Story, made frequent visits to the cutting room. Garret Donnelly was my editing partner on the series (cutting the even episodes).

After dailies, we worked a little over a year refining cuts. The four of us would usually screen cuts together chronologically until we had a shape we were all happy with. (We also had wonderful partners in Alex Sapot and Andrew McQuinn at Netflix.) After each screening, Pete and Eric would give us some time to explore the notes. During that time, Garret and I were extremely collaborative with our cuts… constantly sharing ideas with each other and questioning each other’s cuts. It’s rare to have such a close collaboration with another editor. I valued that tremendously.

Once we had revised cuts of all the episodes, we’d sometimes start back from the beginning. Other times, Pete would come to the cutting room with an inspired idea about a scene or sequence we had long put to bed and asked us to try a radical new direction. The cuts were constantly evolving and changing. I’ve never had so much fun in the cutting room, having the opportunity to play and experiment. It really was an editor’s dream come true. I estimate that there are some scenes and sequences where I have created hundreds of different versions. I’ve never experienced that before but loved every moment of it.

What are some of your favorite scenes to cut, or maybe the most challenging?
There are so many sequences in Painkiller I’m fond of for different reasons. I talked earlier about the Glen breakfast scene. That was a fun one to cut because there was a musicality to the cutting. It was so nonlinear and rhythm-based that it was a blast to conceptualize and piece together. Miami was a crazy thing to put together. There was a massive amount of footage to play with, an embarrassment of riches, with so many iterations of that sequence along the way. It’s something we kept finessing until the very end.

I also love the way we introduce Glen in Episode 1. Pete did such a wonderful job blocking that scene, it was such a joy to put together. It starts as an ordinary “day in the life” of Glen. Very quickly, we learn so much about his character — what it’s like to run a small business and the stress that comes with that, and what his relationship is with his family (his wife, daughter and stepson). All the while, his son, Tyler (Jack Mulhern), is horsing around with an excavator. It seems playful, but it immediately introduces a level of tension into the scene. I think any smart viewer will realize pretty quickly that something bad is going to happen. We just don’t know how or when. The excavator becomes this ticking clock running in the background throughout. And then, when the inciting incident does happen, Glen’s injury, we’ve already fallen in love with this character – and hopefully, that makes it even more surprising and heartbreaking.

There are a couple of Richard Sackler scenes that I’m quite fond of as well. The opening scene in Episode 1 – Richard hunting the smoke detector – was so much fun to play with. It’s all just kind of crazy. And it says so much about this character without many words. When I had the idea to add “Sound of Silence,” the whole scene came alive in an almost absurdist kind of way.

The same thing goes for the scene in Episode 3, where Edie goes to Purdue and meets Richard for the first time. He’s throwing a tennis ball around the lobby for his dog, Unch. Again, I love the way Pete staged that sequence; it’s so inspired and unexpected. The way I built that sequence almost came about accidentally. The dog wasn’t cooperating on-set. As I began piecing the scene together, I didn’t know how I was going to address the continuity issues with the dog. This was a big dog, so he was almost always in the frame. So I decided I was just going to concentrate on Matthew’s performance and solve the dog later.

I built together a string-out of all the best pieces (and improvisations) from Matthew. And when I watched it, there was something kind of magical about the nonlinear nature of it all. Matthew was so good, mischievous, and maybe unhinged that it added another dimension to the character he was playing. I embraced the imperfections and continuity mismatches. I think it all came out rather delicious.

Possible to share a note that the showrunner gave regarding a scene or episode?
Originally, we didn’t meet Richard Sackler until much deeper into Episode 1. It started much more linearly with Edie and followed her into the deposition as she began to tell the story. Uzo’s performance is amazing throughout, and we knew the strength of her acting would carry the show. But there was a lot of heavy exposition to get out of the way. As we started experimenting with editorial style, we knew we also had to get the audience comfortable with the visual language of the show.

Pete and Eric came up with the idea of moving the smoke detector scene to the top of Episode 1. Now we had a way to ease ourselves into the exposition and introduce Richard Sackler sooner (hopefully in an entertaining way). It was also a chance to tease some of the stylistic chances we would be taking as the show progressed. When we screened this version, we all felt that we had figured out a way to tell the audience, “This is something different.”

What did you use to cut the series? Any particular tools that came in handy for this one?
Avid Media Composer. We had a really cool setup designed by Tommy Pham and TriCoast Media for this show. We had local hard drive media on all of our Avid setups, but our project files were all cloud-based. That way, no matter what system we decided to work on, at any location, we could load our projects seamlessly and work without any downtime. Our assistants were all working from home, so all our interactions with them were over PacPost.live or Slack. One benefit of the pandemic is that it’s really forced us to think outside the box and come up with some really creative workflows.

Finally, what stands out about this show from your perspective in terms of the editing?
Pete and Eric not only trusted me to be their partner in telling such an important story but were brave enough to give me the time to experiment and play. Sometimes showrunners get nervous when you show ideas that are half-baked or “works in progress.” This was very rarely the case with Painkiller.

Some of the craziest ideas would spark new ones and push us into surprising new directions. I’ve never had a creative collaboration like this before, but I sure hope I do again. I know, without a doubt, the experience of working with Pete pushed my skill set to new levels. He made me a better, more confident, fearless editor. I’m really proud of what we all accomplished together.

DP Judd Overton Talks Season 2 of Peacock’s Killing It

DP Judd Overton

Peacock’s Killing It is a comedy about down-on-his-luck single dad Craig (Craig Robinson) and Uber driver Jillian (Claudia O’Doherty), who teamed up to win a snake-killing contest so that Craig could use the $20,000 prize to buy a patch of Florida swampland, where he could grow saw palmetto berries and become a health supplement mogul. But every seeming step forward instead pulled our heroes at least four steps backward.

“Craig’s rags-to-riches story continues this season,” explains the show’s DP, Judd Overton. “And we really explore his struggles to be a ‘good person’ while pursuing the great American dream of financial success.”

Overton is an Australian director of photography based in Los Angeles, whose credits also include Young Rock, Ghosts and No Activity, about which we interviewed him a few years back.

He shot both seasons of Killing It, and we recently reached out to him to talk about his workflow.

You worked on both seasons. How has the look/workflow evolved, if at all? How would you describe the look?
I would call the look of Killing It heightened naturalism. I want the show to feel real and relatable so that when our everyday heroes inevitably fall into ridiculous situations, we keep the audience grounded. It’s got a real “that could actually be happening out there somewhere right now” vibe.

One of our showrunners, Luke Del Tredici, loves the look we discovered. We enhanced it for Season 2, with blown-out windows and glowing highlights, the feeling of an oppressive Miami heat forces its way into the dark interiors.

A progression to our style for this season really hit me when I was reading the cold opening of Episode 2. The season introduces new bad guys in the form of the Boones, a hardened swamp family similar to the ones in Ozark and Justified.

What instantly resonated with me was the similarity to the conflicts I remembered from the Westerns I’d grown up watching. I suggested this perspective to director Mo Marable, who loved the idea. We embraced widescreen close-ups and low angles with a lot of negative space to really enhance our use of the wider 2×1 aspect ratio to constrain the friction between our dueling families.

How did you work with the showrunners? What direction were you given?
Dan Goor and Luke are very hands-on and very present, and you can see that every word has been considered in the room. The great thing on-set is that there is still hope — even an expectation — that we will find something better on-set. Each writer is on-set for their episode and will often do alts to sharpen and improve a scene.

We shoot mostly with three cameras for the ensemble scenes, which allows the actors to really play off each other and provide the editors with the right reactions should one of the improv moments really deliver.

What about working with the colorist? What are some notes that you exchanged? Who was the colorist?
I continued my relationship for the second season with colorist Siggy Ferstl at Company 3, who was amazing at blending all our independent storylines and wonderful locations into one cohesive world. We graded in Resolve using a K1S1 LUT to balance out the multiple camera formats. Then we referenced 3D LUT Cubes from on-set DIT Paul Maletich as a leaping-off point for the final color.

What did you end up shooting on and why? 
We shot a range of cameras and formats all expertly managed by first AC Blair Rogers. Cameras included three ARRI Alexa LF Minis and 4K, 6K and 12K Ursa OLPF Blackmagic cameras.

In front of the camera, we used Gecko Glass Vintage 66 lenses and a combination of Cinema Modified Canon K35s and FDs. I had tested these through Keslow Camera for the first season and loved the combination of the full-frame LF Mini with vintage glass. It gives a contemporary feeling in-camera but a flattering softness to skin tones, which is important, especially when shooting three-camera coverage on big outdoor sequences. Also, there was some beautiful soft flaring when needed. We also carried Premista zooms, which I used occasionally by adding Glimmerglass diffusion to reduce the contrast and better match the Prime lenses.

Can you talk about using heightened naturalism as a tool to find comedy in a bleak everyday life?
The approach with Killing It has always been to keep it real, which means not forcing the comedy with super-wide lenses, not pushing the saturation up because it’s a comedy. If anything, it’s my background in documentary work that influences the naturalistic look.

We choose the best time of day and look for locations that support shooting with three cameras. The heightened monuments are often cold opens, one-shot Steadicam scenes and transitional sequences that show visual counterpoints… the cracks forming in the everyday veneer.

You have used visual elements of other genres to advance the story and emphasize the comedy, like referencing thriller visuals to showcase a character on the run. Tell us about it.
The mood of the show always comes from the page. There is a fine line in the show between maintaining continuity and going on the individual journey with each character in what could often be considered stand-alone episodes.

We always have the swamp, the sideways office trailer and the Boones’ decommissioned strip club as a backdrop for our main characters and their journeys, but so much of the show takes place on the road, traveling from one conflict to the next.

I feel that there are a few simple rules we established in Season 1 to maintain the continuity. Big skies: We wanted the feeling of palm trees and lots of sky above, so we will often shoot our widest frame with that in mind. Heat: The constant, oppressive Miami heat, with sweat dripping and sunlight flaring the lens. Color: We look for and capture all the pastels of Miami but keep the saturation natural, so we are not forcing the “comedy” look on the audience.

Other than that, the cinematography follows the main characters’ journeys through each episode, starting with some incredible cold openers and endings that usually leave them worse off than when they started.

Can you talk lighting?
My longtime gaffer, Kevin Massey, returned for Season 2. A lot of this show is about preparation and working with the elements. Key grip Kyle Pugsley provided big sails and HMIs on Condors to fill the shadows when the sun is out or to create some contrast when the clouds dominate the skyline. While shooting Season 1 in NoLa, we learned to be ready for anything, to pivot at a moment’s notice, and the second season was no different.

All the episodes are 30 minutes long, and we shoot in five days in mostly real, practical locations. When we do get to build a set, we have a lot of fun.

One regular location from this year was the swamp mafia family the Boones’ abandoned strip club. I worked with Kevin and his team to make this feel like it was in a state of disrepair; the staging and lighting were all in place but not working properly, run-down and never maintained. This gave us a dark, seedy vibe inside with some mixed color temperatures, which contrasts the bright lights streaming in from outside.

Showrunner Luke Del Tredici loves the feeling of hot Miami sunlight drilling into these dark underground spaces. We played a lot to get this balance right, and in the end, struck on a really fun splash of color, which still feels imperfect and real.

Another challenge for the lighting department was shooting in high-rise hotel rooms. These are never fun and always a logistical challenge.

We had to shoot three cameras, day for night, in an extremely small hotel room, with a 1-foot-deep balcony. This season, we came up with an extremely effective method using a customized box of Litemats fitted to the sliding windows of our 12th-floor room. Production designer Claire Bennett and her team helped us with some textured sheer curtains, and once we got the light boxes dialed in with the dimmer board operator, we could quickly move anywhere in the room, even right up against the windows, and it felt like soft, natural light glowing up the room.

Did any happy accidents happen on-set?
Always! My approach is to prep and plan thoroughly so that if (when) things go awry on-set, I can stay in the moment and be open to the opportunities that arise rather than trying to force things a way they don’t want to go.

An example from this season was that we ended up shooting through some of the wettest months I’ve ever experienced here in Los Angeles. We used all the tricks: swapping schedule, shooting under giant fabrics and even rain deflectors on the cameras. At one point, I chatted with showrunner Luke Del Tredici, and we agreed to embrace it!

Are there some scenes that stick out as challenging?
It’s always about time… knowing how much time you have and identifying any pitfalls as early as possible.

The big challenge on Killing It Season 2 was the rain and even more, the mud. In the end, we embraced the rain as a dramatic representation of the downward moral spiral our characters are on even as they strive for greater heights. The mud could not be embraced, and some days we just could not get the company up the hill to our swamp location, which ironically looked a lot like a flooded swamp.

On those few days, we were extremely fortunate that our production designer, Claire Bennett, had fabricated the interior of the sideways office onstage, so we had total control — rain or shine. We had a lot of fun matching the interior with a limited amount of bluescreen and fun gags, like windows on the floor, a toilet seat up the wall and a ladder to enter through the ceiling/door.

All the walls and light fixtures could fly out so that we could get cameras in position, but we really tried to shoot as if we were confined in an actual trailer — again, always conscious of “keeping it real” in an unusual environment.

Looking back on the show, would you have done anything different?
I am always learning and hope I always will be. I always try to stay open to other ways of doing things, and if someone has a better way to achieve a shot, even a different way, I will give it a try.

Any tips for young cinematographers?
One of the things I was told early on has always stuck with me — just keep shooting. There is nothing like actually making films, putting scenes together and working with a crew, whether that’s a bunch of friends or hundreds of film professionals. I love it.

Emmys: Supervising Sound Editor Bryan Parker on Mrs. Davis

By Randi Altman

The plot of Peacock’s Mrs. Davis? Well, in a nutshell, it’s about a nun, Sister Simone, and her handsome ex-boyfriend traveling the globe to destroy an AI called Mrs. Davis.

Bryan Parker

This year, the series was nominated for an Emmy Award for its Sound Editing team, which includes supervising sound editor Bryan Parker, in addition to Kristen Hirlinger, Nathan Efstation, Roland Thai, Matt Decker, Sam C. Lewis, Sam Munoz,Ellen Heuer and Nancy Parker. We reached out to Formosa Group’s Bryan Parker to find out more about his Emmy-nominated work.

How would you describe the soundscape of Mrs. Davis? What makes it unique?
This show needs to feel loose and funny and quick, but it needs to have a backdrop of very high stakes and dramatic tension behind the characters’ banter. Algorithms love tropes. Sound helps the action moments feel very hyped up and larger than life where necessary, but we left room for those action moments to feel over-the-top and funny as well.

What direction were you given by the showrunner?
Tara Hernandez didn’t want a sci-fi sound aesthetic for this show because she didn’t want it to feel too detached from our current world, I think. For the actual Mrs. Davis app and the phone sounds that it makes, I made several versions ahead of time, before episodes were locked, and we established that palette with a few rounds of notes.

For all the trope-y moments like the sword fight, motorcycle chase, etc, Tara wanted to lean into the hyped cinematic aesthetic to make those sound huge. I think the serious sound design in those scenes enhances their comedy value considerably.

What episode did you submit for Emmy and why? What was it about that episode that you feel made it worthy?
We decided to submit the pilot episode for consideration just because it covers so much ground: three continents, four languages, sword fight, desert island fireworks, convent, cartoony jam explosion and ensuing car chase, motorcycle chase through a toy clown factory, etc. We thought it showcased a diverse lot of different sonic strategies in one package.

What was a challenging scene or sequence from that episode?
The swordfight was the most challenging, not just because of the amount of detail and action, but because getting the right tone took some attempts. It’s funnier if it feels very serious and violent and horrifying and has just a little extra dollop of gore on top, starting with the sister who leaps through the air with the sword in her stomach, to help give the audience permission to laugh.

What was an example of a note you were given by the showrunners?
We received a few notes in the pilot to keep the location of Reno, Nevada alive, showcasing slot machines more in the background and adding a jackpot chime when Simone slides down the door and falls. It speaks to her past there and sets up Episode 102. There was a lot of throughline work like that in Tara’s notes.

What tools were used on the show? Anything come in particularly handy?
Kristen Hirlinger and Nathan Efstation, our dialogue editors, used Auto Align Post and iZotope RX quite a bit during the series to rescue some iffy production dialogue since we wanted to replace as little as possible in ADR.

The actors shot all out of order in all different locations as the episodes move from country to country, and we were so constricted for ADR time that we elected to rescue as much production as we could ahead of time, pulling alts, cheats, anything.

Where did you work out of studio wise?
Editorial was all done through Formosa Group with my team, and the mix was at Warner Bros. with the esteemed mix team of Todd Grace and Ed Carr.

What haven’t I asked about Mrs. Davis that’s important?
Well… you haven’t asked the huge sound design for the main title. The big groan-y machine sound in there is a dishwasher door at Formosa Group that I recorded one night when I was working late!

(Editor’s Note: Check out our interview with one of the show’s directors.)


Randi Altman is the founder and editor-in-chief of postPerspective. She has been covering production and post production for more than 25 years. 

Editor Bob Ducsay on Peacock’s Poker Face

By Iain Blair

Poker Face

Bob Ducsay

Thanks to such hits as Knives Out and its sequel, Glass Onion, director/writer Rian Johnson has almost single-handedly revived the murder mystery genre. His latest project is Poker Face, a 10-episode series following Natasha Lyonne’s Charlie, who can tell when someone is lying. After leaving her job in Las Vegas, she hits the road with her Plymouth Barracuda at every stop encounters a new cast of characters and strange crimes she can’t help but solve.

To help edit and set the tone for his new show, Johnson turned to his longtime editor, Bob Ducsay, ACE. I spoke with Ducsay about the editing challenges and the post workflow on the show, which streams on Peacock. Poker Face was recently nominated for four Emmy Awards, including for production design and lead actress for Lyonne.

What were the main challenges of editing Poker Face?
One of the big ones right out of the gate was that we made Episode 9 first instead of doing the pilot. That was because of scheduling and some other issues.

How did that affect setting the very specific comedic tone for the rest of the series, especially as that episode is a lot darker than the others?
Normally you do Episode 1 first, and that sets the tone for the rest of it. Doing it like this was far more of a challenge because the episode is so tonally different. But Rian and Natasha knew where this was ultimately going to land for the audience, and I just did my best to follow their cues. And while in a way it was very challenging to work backward, I did have the benefit of having read all the other episodes and understanding where we were headed.

We then shot Episode 1, or at least a big chunk of it, and we were able to get our footing. I think my having a good grasp of the whole season helped a lot. But looking back, it was pretty interesting and challenging coming off Episode 9 and going into such a contrast with Episode 1, which, while it does have real violence and real stakes, has a lot more lightness and comedy in it.

You’ve cut so many of Rian’s projects. What is your collaboration process like?
Rian and I have worked together for over a decade now. I started with him back on Looper, and since then we’ve done Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Knives Out, Glass Onion and now this show. One of the great things we have now, which we certainly didn’t have back when we did Looper, is a real shorthand.

My job as an editor is to serve and enhance the vision of the director – and in this case, the writer/director, which is even better. That’s all a lot easier now after all this time working together since we understand each other really well.

The show had multiple editors. How did that work?
We had three other really great editors – Glenn Garland (ACE), Shaheed Qaasim and Paul Swain – who cut the other episodes, and we were all equal. As I cut the first two – 9 and 1 – they were able to look at them, which was so helpful in terms of establishing the tone. In fact, many of the other episodes are a lot lighter and more comedic than even the pilot I cut.

While I didn’t oversee the other editors, I did give them some tips about the kinds of things that Rian looks for as well as some general advice. These one-hour episodes are all treated as mini-movies with different directors and different DPs and different writers, but in the end it’s all Rian’s coherent vision that pulls it all together. We cut and posted it all at Keep Me Posted, and FotoKem’s Nextlab did the dailies.

What about integrating the VFX and post?
We were still posting Glass Onion when we began making the first two episodes of Poker Face, so I had some resources, like VFX editor Vaughn Bien, who was also on the film with us. He did a lot of temp VFX right away, and that helped a lot since Episode 9 had a lot of VFX. Almost the entire episode takes place at night, and DP Steve Yedlin (ASC) shot a lot of stuff day-for-night, so we had a lot of post work to do on all that coverage.

Then, just generally, we had a lot of VFX, especially for the snow, as we shot it in New York in the summer. In fact, all the episodes had a lot of VFX, done by Rocket Science VFX and Ingenuity Studios, and we had a great VFX supervisor, Craig Clarke.

Tell us about the workflow and the editing gear used.
We cut on Avid Media Composer, rented by EPS-Cineworks, with the then-current software version 2021.12.1, and our storage was 10TB. Our SFX and music library was 4.5TB. Storage was less than ideal because we were finishing Glass Onion at the same time, and we weren’t physically in the same space as the rest of the editorial and post team.

The other three editors and their crews were right down the street at Rian’s production company on a separate Avid Nexis system, while the Nexis storage we were using had both Glass Onion and this show on it.

What was the most difficult scene to cut and why?
It’s the scene in Episode 9 where Charlie gets found out and is trying to leave the hotel, and they want to kill her. It was very tricky because building tension requires very specific timing with all the quiet moments… the pauses, the looks. It’s all pure editorial. Is she going to die or not? And building all that is very challenging, as it all comes down to feeling, and the pace is very intricate and quite precise.

I assume you must have used a lot of temp sound?
Yes, and I’m very sound-centric. I cut in 5.1; I’ve done that for almost a decade now. Sam Bollinger, my first assistant, starts the temp while I continue to do additional work, and then of course we get elements from the sound team. We do a lot less than we would on a movie, but I put a lot of effort into the mix while we’re cutting.

I know it’s obvious, but there’s a huge interaction between the soundtrack and picture — even though the soundtrack doesn’t drive the initial edit — because I cut without music and sound effects. The initial edit is based on the picture, story and characters, but once that’s done, I like to get into all the sound and get a nice temp going with the soundtrack. That’s when I take another pass on a sequence, and that’s when you understand how key sound effects are going to work.

How would you sum up the whole experience? Where does it rank in terms of challenges and satisfaction?
Right up there, as I’ve done virtually no episodic TV before this. So the format, with the act breaks, was novel to me and very appealing. And I just loved the show and the whole tone.


Industry insider Iain Blair has been interviewing the biggest directors in Hollywood and around the world for years. He is a regular contributor to Variety and has written for such outlets as Reuters, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times and the Boston Globe.

Yellowstone

Yellowstone Editor Chad Galster Talks Pace and Collaboration

By Alyssa Heater

The Paramount series Yellowstone, created by Taylor Sheridan, has become a cultural phenomenon over the span of its five seasons. The drama surrounding the Dutton family and the fate of their ranch has drawn millions of devoted viewers who are eagerly awaiting the release of Season 5’s final episodes.

We recently sat down with Yellowstone editor and longtime Sheridan collaborator Chad Galster, ACE, to discuss all things editorial on the fifth and final season of the series.

Yellowstone

Chad Galster

You’ve worked with Taylor Sheridan since the beginning of Yellowstone. You also worked on its prequels, 1883 and 1923, and on Mayor of Kingstown. How does having a sort of shorthand help to achieve the desired pace?
Yes, we’ve been working together for a long time, so that means a couple of things. One is that, over the years, it’s become clear that we see movies and TV the same way. There’s a benefit to a longstanding relationship like this one, where I can tell if he’s going to like something or not. And when he doesn’t like something, I can usually figure out what the fix is pretty quickly. The more that you collaborate with a person, you actually talk less as time goes on because you understand what that person wants to see.

As far as pacing out the story for Yellowstone, 1883 and 1923, each show generally has its own rhythm. It’s a rhythm that makes sense to me from the footage that comes in and from the way it was directed, shot and performed.

YellowstoneHow do you work with Taylor on the edit?
We work rather closely, even though he’s based in Texas, and I live in Los Angeles. When we’re working together on a show, I’ll travel to him about every two weeks so we can work in person, even if it’s just for a few days. You get that irreplaceable, in-person dynamic. It’s just that thing, the way he breathes, the way he does something or a look that he gives me. I’ll say to myself, “Oh, he didn’t like that shot.”

That in-person aspect of our relationship is really important. For as much as we’ve all gotten used to communicating and collaborating over Zoom, there’s a part of my job that I think benefits from the time we spend together. I think it’s a key to our success.

Any other key collaborators involved in the creative decision-making process?
Many. My friend Michael Friedman, who introduced me and Taylor years ago, is one of our creative producers and a central part of the team. They’ve known each other for 20 or 25 years at this point, way before all of the craziness of Yellowstone started. When we’re working together, it’s often Taylor, Michael and I figuring out the best way to present the show.

Speaking of shorthand, the longevity of the show and these relationships — from our composers to our sound team — means that there is a shorthand in communication. Typically, we create these shows on an accelerated schedule, so it helps to have partners you don’t have to exchange a lot of words with because they just get it. That’s a big part of our success as well.

How did you handle the pacing for Yellowstone and its prequels? And how does Season 5 differ from the previous seasons?
When I’m working, I don’t think about it. What I do think about are the visual dynamics within the show — moments to stop and start, moments to make things very violent and then moments that bring it down so it gets very quiet and still. In my mind, that’s how you keep an audience engaged.

I was an amateur musician for about half my life, so dynamics, volume and pace are important aspects of people connecting to classical music. I think of editing much in the same way. For example, if you’re just going to have a barrage of gunfire, that’s going to get old with your audience pretty quickly. You have to be constantly thinking of ways to change up the rhythm and the flow of what you’re doing.

Yellowstone

Off the top of my head, in Episode 1 of Season 5, when John Dutton is sworn in, there was a fun moment when I sucked all the sound out of the scene. There’s a young girl singing the national anthem when all the sound goes away, and he’s just locked into his mind. Then he starts to hear the church bell chime.

Using sound, in addition to picture, to change the rhythm of what we’re doing is more than any specific overall rhythm given to the season. Those little moments are a key to keeping our audience engaged. And I’m just always looking for places to do that.

Speaking of the violence, there is a scene from Episode 3 of Season 5 that stands out. The Dutton Ranch cowboys and Beth are at a bar, and a girl is flirting with Rip. Beth is having none of it, so there’s a beer bottle over the head, and the entire bar breaks out into a fight. Then it’s a quick cut. The cops are there, and they’re all standing outside. Tell us a bit about that scene.
That’s a fun story because it’s based on a real thing that happened to Taylor. A lot of things are drawn from experiences he’s had. I think the violence in Yellowstone can be quick and brutal, but it’s not drawn out. We’re conscious of not making it melodramatic. The way that things turn in real life are sudden, and they’re quick and they’re violent, but then they’re over with.

A bar fight doesn’t last for five minutes; it lasts for 30 seconds or until someone gets punched in the face, and then they’re done. There’s a bit of an entertainment spectacle to what we’re doing. It is a TV show, so the fight has some entertainment value — no one is going to die in that fight, so the stakes are somewhat low.

And it’s funny the way it evolves. You have the guitarist up on the stage who just keeps playing through it. This is what happens in this bar. He probably saw another fight earlier that night. Then boom, it’s done and we’re on to the next thing. We don’t belabor it.

Who is your assistant editor, and what is your collaboration process like?
There are several on the show, but mine is Michael Goldberg, who has been with me for a couple of years now. He’s based in Atlanta — that’s the way the world works now. It used to be that we would all be in the same office together, trading ideas back and forth. I do miss that collaboration. Before Michael, it was Brooke Rupe.  She worked with me from Season 2 of Yellowstone as well as on Those Who Wish Me Dead and up to 1883, when she started to get editing credits. I tend to work with my assistants closely and for an extended period.

The shows that we make are on a very tight schedule, so you need to trust the people that you’re working with. My relationship with my first assistant editor is vital. Because I travel a lot to work with Taylor, my assistant will prep travel materials and encrypt drives for me. We work in some pretty remote parts of Texas, so there is a lot that I depend on them for. Michael has been a great partner and so was Brooke. Eventually a lot of them want to move on to editing, and I consider it my responsibility to help facilitate that. That’s part of the job, but it’s tough when they go.

Let’s shift gears and talk tech. What system do you use to edit?
I use Avid Media Composer v2018.12.15 because I love that particular interface. In 20 years, I have only done one thing that wasn’t on Avid, a History Channel show from 2005 that was on Final Cut 7.

As far as editing tools go, I believe very strongly that you should use whatever tool you feel comfortable with. The reason Avid works for me is because I am so used to the interface. I don’t even think about it anymore. A long time ago, it became muscle memory for me — I think about what I want to have happen and then my fingers do it. Beyond that, if you are working in episodic television or collaborating with other people, Avid has the collaboration aspect of file sharing worked out in a way that I haven’t seen replicated anywhere else.

Do you use plugins?
I’m spoiled. When you work on a TV show with a big budget, there are a lot of folks who take on the other jobs. My responsibility is picture editing, sound editing and sound effects editing, then it goes off to other folks. Because my responsibility is limited to the craft of cutting the picture and the sound, that’s all I have to do. When we use plugins, I use a very basic set of them. The shows that I work on don’t depend on editing effects very often. There is a lot of compositing, bluescreen and visual effects, but I just need to have a temp comp done, and it doesn’t take much. I have my Avid, and that’s all I need.

How did you work with the sound team at Formosa — supervising sound editor Jay Nierenberg and mixers Diego Gat and Sam Ejnes. How do you achieve a soundscape that matches the intensity of the picture?
Every editor is different in how they handle their sound in the offline. I tend to be very meticulous. For example, the inauguration scene where all the sound gets sucked out — that was something that I did in the offline.

I provide a specific blueprint for what I think the sound should be on our episodes. We have a fantastic sound team who will then take that and elevate it. What’s important to me is that we hire these artists for what they bring to the table. I always tell folks what I think, but if they have a better idea, let’s hear it. I’m not tied to anything, I just want the show to be the best that it can be.

Our teams are longstanding collaborators, so we can go back and forth, and they know what the basics of the world are. We all know how to do horse sounds and cowboy sounds, but what could we do that’s different than what we’ve done before? Soundscape and sound design are, in a lot of ways, the easiest way to do that.

When we spot the episodes, we’ll have a Zoom session. We’ll watch the episode and, after every scene, pause and ask, “What do you guys think?” “Do you want to try this?” They’ll ask me, “How tied are you to this particular kind of music?” And we’ll just go back and forth. My general answer is that I’m not tied to it; improve on it, make it better or do something different. If we don’t come up with something different, then what was in the offline is a reasonable blueprint for something that would be cool. A lot of collaboration, a lot of trust and a lot of really great artists are involved at all of those stages.

Anything else that you would like to share about your experience editing Yellowstone?
This show, this job and my relationship with Taylor are the highlights of my professional career. I enjoy the community of people that is interested in it, and the enthusiasm for the work is really rewarding. It’s not something that we take for granted. It was also completely unexpected.

We were making Yellowstone for a couple years just going about our business, and then suddenly it exploded in popularity. It’s cool that people connect to the material that way. But we haven’t really changed anything about what we’re doing. We’re still mostly the same folks making the same show. So hopefully that’s what continues.


Alyssa Heater is a writer working in the entertainment industry. When not writing, you can find her front row at heavy metal shows or remodeling her cabin in the San Gabriel Mountains.

Lucky Hank

Richard Schwadel on Editing Dark Comedy Lucky Hank

By Randi Altman

AMC’s dramedy Lucky Hank follows Hank Devereaux (Bob Odenkirk), an English department chairman at a small Pennsylvania college. Hank, who always seems on the edge of a full-blown meltdown, wrote one novel years ago and has had writer’s block since, contributing to his bad mood. The show follows Hank as he navigates his family and his wacky colleagues while also trying to come to terms with his very successful writer father, who left the family when Hank was a kid.

Lucky Hank

Richard Schwadel

Lucky Hank was created by Paul Lieberstein (The Office) and Aaron Zelman (The Killing), who called on editors Richard Schwadel (Episodes 1, 2 and 7), Justin Li (Episodes 5 and 6) and Jamie Alain (Episodes 3, 4 and 8) to cut the show.

We reached out to Schwadel to talk about tone, pace and more…

How early did the showrunners get you involved? Prior to the shoot? During? How did that help?
I was hired to cut Episodes 101, 102 and 107 about a month before shooting started. I hadn’t worked with Aaron or Paul before, but I had worked with Peter Farrelly on two seasons of Loudermilk and The Now. He directed Episodes 101 and 102 and is an EP on the show.

You edited the first two episodes, in a sense setting the tone for the editing on the series.
The show’s tone changes over the arc of the series. It begins feeling like a workplace comedy, but as it goes deeper into Hank’s relationship with his wife, Lily, and his colleagues, we learn more of his backstory, and it gets much more dramatic.

In terms of setting the tone, I follow the script’s intent as closely as possible but also rely on my gut. If a parenthetical in the script differs from what I’m seeing in a performance I like, I may go with what I intuit works best. In some cases, I’ll cut an alt of the scene. If I don’t understand a line of dialogue, I’ll reread the script until I do — or I’ll ask someone. It’s so crucial to understand every line of dialogue.

What about the pacing?
For pace, I’m always tweaking it from the very start, and my goal is to present an airable editor’s cut. I only had a few short discussions with Pete before production began, but I know his sense of humor and what he’s trying to accomplish with his actors.

A good example is from Episode 102. There’s a scene where Paul storms into the common room yelling at Gracie, who had his car towed. As he’s screaming at her, all the professors wander out of their offices to watch. Emma is sitting between Paul and Gracie, who are standing. Paul blurts out, “You are a petty, cruel, vindictive woman!”

Pete, being the comic genius he is, had Emma take a bite of a cracker at that moment to punctuate the line and break the tension. Then she looks to Gracie for her reaction. It’s a laugh-out-loud moment that wasn’t scripted. I instinctively knew that cutting to Emma’s close-up was key, and then I just worked on the timing of it. The only note I got from Pete was to make the cracker louder.

Aaron and Paul were still writing and working on-set when I started, so most of our conversations happened later. However, when it came time for the producer’s cut, we got serious about lifting material for length and story, which obviously affects pace, so those trims are always taken into account for the overall flow of the show. That’s why it’s so important to always screen your cuts from top to bottom after you’ve been working deep in the weeds.

Did they let you sort of work on your own and then with them, or were they getting edits regularly?
I’m a proponent of being left alone to present my editor’s cut. I think it’s crucial that editors present their objective view of the material. Of course, I’ll send out cuts of scenes if it’s warranted, but usually, the directors and producers are so involved in the production and re-writing that they don’t see anything until I’m finished with my cut. I also assume that I’m hired based on a level of trust in my experience.

Lucky Hank

Lucky Hank is a very dialogue-heavy show. Can you talk about tackling all that dialogue?
The pilot’s opening scene is about four pages of dialogue between Hank and one of his students. It opens with a student named Bartow reading his story out loud to the class. Hank’s disengaged, making a shopping list in his head. Before Bartow finishes, Hank interrupts him and asks for comments. Bartow asks Hank to comment on it because he never does. Hank keeps trying to avoid commenting but finally caves, eviscerating the kid’s work.

An opening scene like this needs to evolve in a way that slowly builds toward its climax. You want the audience to be a bit ahead, thinking “Uh-oh. Something bad’s coming.” As the confrontation builds and Hank gets more irritated, the pace increases until finally, he explodes at the kid. Then we crash into the main title. The toughest part of that scene was trying to keep our lifts invisible and the class’s reactions feeling natural.

I don’t have a particular formula for cutting dialogue-intensive scenes. I just need to understand what the scene’s about, what the subtext is (if any) and whether the viewers are ahead of or behind the story.

Having the privilege of editing Bob Odenkirk’s performances was just incredible. His face is so expressive, and he can speak volumes with just a grunt or a look. Mining moments like that was such a joy. Not to mention the vastly talented cast — from Mireille Enos, Diedrich Bader, Suzanne Cryer and newcomer Shannon DeVido. Everyone just kills it.

The first two episodes were directed by Peter Farrelly, known for his quirky comedies (Dumb and Dumber, There’s Something About Mary) but also the drama Green Book. How was it working with him while simultaneously working with Nicole Holofcener on Episode 7, which is definitely more emotional in tone?
I really enjoy working with Pete. He knows the scripts inside and out. He’s not precious about cutting anything that doesn’t serve the story. His comedy lands so well that I still laugh at scenes I’ve seen dozens of times.

Juggling 101, 102 and 107 was both a challenge and a breeze. The challenging part was I’d be in the middle of screening dailies for 107 and get a text that the producers have an hour right now to jump onto 102. So I’d have a plan for the dailies mapped out in my head, then I’d have to stop and jump onto a different episode. Nothing I haven’t done before, but it’s always a difficult adjustment to switch gears so quickly.

The breezy part was that Nicole Holofcener shot 107 so well — everything just fit together very naturally. I really enjoyed the different tone of that episode. Between Hank trying to confront his dementia-ridden father over walking out on his family and Lily starting her new career in NYC, it almost feels like a different show. I’ve also cut a lot of dramas, so it came very easily to me.

In terms of 107 being a more emotional episode, my favorite scene is the ending. Hank tries to make peace with his daughter Julie. There are two lines of dialogue at the top of the scene, and then the rest of the scene— about a minute and a half — is silent as Michael Nau’s wonderful song “While You Stand” begins. It’s a tear-jerker moment as a father reconnects with his daughter by just being present.

Hank isn’t very warm and fuzzy in the first two episodes. He’s almost hard to like. How did you walk that line with making him feel human but also not having the audience turn off to him or some of the other more difficult characters that make up the faculty?
That’s a great point. The show is loosely based on Richard Russo’s novel, “Straight Man.” In the book, Hank’s an unlikeable character who verbally destroys pretty much everyone he interacts with, except for his wife. Making him likable as the lead of a series was no easy task, but I think Paul and Aaron pulled it off really well.

By the end of Episode 2, we’ve learned that Hank’s living under the shadow of his famous father, an academic literary critic, and that his dad also walked out on his family when Hank was in his teens. So as unlikeable as Hank may be, there’s now a backstory, so the audience can sympathize with this damaged guy.

There’s a scene in the pilot where Hank apologizes for yelling at Bartow. Originally, his apology came about two-thirds into the episode. However, Paul and Aaron moved that scene into the first act so we understand Hank actually cares about his students and has some humanity in him. It was a smart move.

And how did you balance that with the more likable characters, his wife and the dean?
That’s all in the writing and performances. True, I get to choose which performances to use, but “if it ain’t on the page, it ain’t on the stage.”

Any other scenes that stick out to you as challenging or that you are especially proud of?
There’s a scene in Episode 102 where Hank and Lily are in a restaurant waiting to meet their daughter Julie and her husband, Russell, for dinner. They think Julie’s pregnant and is about to break the news, so they’re very excited. Julie and Russell arrive, they have small talk, everyone sits, and Julie says she bets they’re wondering what the news is about, but first, Russell wants to tell them something.

Russell launches into a nervous spiel about their property, how an old roommate installs pools, and how they’ve had plans drawn up to build a new pool (which they definitely cannot afford). Hank’s excitement is clearly waning through this, which Lily can see. Well, it turns out that was the big news. No baby, just a new pool. Bob’s expression when they tell him this is priceless.

The challenge here was to keep Hank and Lily’s excitement of the pending announcement through the first part of the scene, then shift the tone to slight confusion, then end on their utter shock and disappointment — all while keeping it funny because it’s a hilarious scene.

Peter had shot it pretty conventionally, with a master four-shot and two cross-twos. But he also put the camera close to the actors for tight two shots. I wanted to save this setup for the perfect moment because with an angle like this, you need the right motivation to cut to it.

I waited for Julie and Russell to tell them their big news: “We’re building a pool!” Then I cut to the POV angle of Hank and Lily’s priceless reaction and played out the rest of the scene in those tight two shots.  It’s so much fun and a delight to watch that I still laugh when I see it.

What did you edit on? Any tool within that system that came in handy?
We cut the show on Avid Media Composer. I used ScriptSync for the first block of two episodes. I knew from experience that Pete liked having ScriptSync for quickly auditioning alts. I wish more shows were budgeted for it because it’s an amazing, time-saving tool. The issue is that it takes time to set up, and when you have three-plus hours of dailies and only one first assistant, it puts too much pressure on them.

Who was your assistant?
Jason Chu was my first assistant. He did a wonderful job keeping everything organized and up to date. This was our first show together, but I’d hire him again in a heartbeat.

I’ve worked with a number of firsts over the years and have even trained a handful who’ve gone on to become editors. It’s very fulfilling for me to watch people I’ve mentored move up – but it’s also bittersweet because I feel like I’ve lost a team member. However, there’s always the possibility we’ll work together again as equals on a project somewhere down the road!


Randi Altman is the founder and editor-in-chief of postPerspective. She has been covering production and post production for more than 25 years. 

VFX and Post for Netflix’s Our Universe

UK-based Lux Aeterna played a significant role in the making of the Netflix series Our Universe, bringing its extensive visual effects expertise to the project, alongside the production team at the BBC Science Unit.

Director Stephen Cooter

We reached out to Lux Aeterna’s VFX director Paul Silcox and CEO/creative director Rob Hifle, Our Universe director Stephen Cooter and the team at Halo Post discuss the challenges they faced and how they tackled them.

How did Our Universe stand out against similar productions you’ve worked on? From both a VFX perspective and the overall look and direction of the series?
Stephen Cooter: It was a pretty unique proposition — combining natural history with VFX to tell the animals’ stories, not just in the context of the planet’s history, but in how they connect with the story of the universe itself, was something that I don’t think had ever been attempted before. We chose to shoot in a 2.39:1 aspect ratio to give the series the cinematic look that the epic nature of the storytelling required. Taking the science fiction films of Steven Spielberg and JJ Abrams as reference, we shot with anamorphic lenses where possible — using the characteristic lens flare to tie the natural history footage together with the VFX space sequences.

Our Universe

Rob Hifle

From the outset, we knew that linking the wildlife stories to the universe narrative was a vital part of the series. We worked closely with Lux Aeterna to develop transitions between the two strands and sequences, where we would integrate VFX within the natural history footage to connect our hero creatures to the cosmos.

How early on did Lux Aeterna get involved in the project? Had you collaborated with the BBC before?
Rob Hifle: We have a long-lasting relationship with the BBC Science Unit. We’ve worked on a multitude of Prof. Brian Cox series over the last 15 years, including Wonders Of the Universe, Human Universe and Wonders Of Life. We collaborated on the award-winning 8 Days: To The Moon & Back, which was a documentary drama featuring real declassified astronaut cockpit audio from the Apollo 11 mission, with actors “lipsyncing” the words. We used immersive VFX techniques to establish a first-person astronaut POV on the moon.

Our Universe

Paul Silcox

The BBC Science Unit has always wanted creative cutting-edge techniques in order to showcase its latest science revelations, so it’s always been a good fit with us, especially with our R&D department.

Were there any particularly complex scenes and if so, how did you navigate them?
Paul Silcox: Our Universe challenged us in many ways, both technically and creatively. We might be thinking big one day, visualizing the invisible forces that protect our atmosphere or erode black holes. The next day we might have to demonstrate fusion at an atomic scale. We were working with extremely large data sets so while we were art directing the collision of planets or destroying moons, we would also have to solve that technically.

Aside from the directors, how closely did you work with the DPs?
Silcox: We worked closely with Mike Davis (the showrunner) and all of the directors to craft the vision for the show. Our brief was to create a cinematic, immersive, entertaining and scientifically accurate depiction of the forces that shaped the lives of the animals featured in the show. By collaborating closely with the team throughout the process, we were able to keep this goal alive and deliver a cohesive vision.

Tell us about the experience on the virtual shoot. What was your input from a VFX perspective here? Did director Stephen Cooter provide a brief beforehand?
Hifle: I’ve worked with virtual studios on numerous occasions but never with a wild “habituated” bear. It was an amazing experience to work on this shoot. The crew in Hungary was highly skilled. There was a huge amount of planning from Stephen Cooter and the BBC in making sure that everything was considered and covered… as much as it’s possible to plan to work with an unpredictable brown bear! That meant we needed to work quickly in order to keep the bear’s time on-set to a minimum.

Courtesy of Stephen Cooter

We planned and artworked all the backplates beforehand, but there was still a need to work alongside the director and DP on-set to get the desired lighting and perspective as well as any last-minute amendments. With the virtual studio backplates, I was able to move the elements around on the screen, such as the moon. This meant we could frame up really quickly using the Technocrane and make changes to the backplates while working with the foreground bear on a practical rock. This flexibility meant that it worked really well for all departments.

Did you come up against any challenges during the shoot? If so, how did you resolve them?
Cooter: There were some sequences that were really important to the narrative of the films but that would’ve been very difficult or dangerous to shoot in the wild, so we needed to take a different approach. For example, to illustrate the connection between the Alaskan brown bear and the moon, we used a virtual studio and backdrops provided by Lux Aeterna to achieve the shot.

How closely did you work with Halo Post to post the final project? Was it full post — including edit, grade and finish? What about audio?
Cooter: We were with Halo for the offline edit and finishing. That meant we were able to call on their sound team — led by dubbing mixer Sam Castleton — throughout the editing process not only to provide a library of sounds, but also to design specific sequences where the audio was crucial to the impact and drama of the universe VFX shots. The planetary-scale collision that created the moon in Episode 3, “Turning Seasons,” is a good example of this. We used Avid Media Composer.

For the natural history sequences, the sound design was done by Wounded Buffalo.

Sam, can you talk about the audio post on this one?
Sam Castleton: The scale of Our Universe was gigantic and presented us with some amazing opportunities and interesting challenges. This led us to create some incredible sound design moments. Mixing it in Dolby Atmos enabled us to achieve the scale and definition required. It also enabled us to bring the stories to life in interesting ways, such as water shooting out of the earth’s core, stardust falling from the sky, photons bursting out of the sun and protostars propelling themselves into space. The sound of the series is very brave, bright and full. We are very proud of what we achieved.

What about the color grade?
Cooter: The series was graded by Halo senior colorist Duncan Russell. Working together, we approached the films on a scene-by-scene basis, giving each one its own look, depending on the mood and atmosphere each scene demanded. While we wanted to preserve the naturalistic look of the natural history sections, grading the universe VFX in HDR and delivering in Dolby Vision allows you to push these sequences much further — they feel like exactly the kind of thing HDR was invented for.

Duncan, what was the challenge for you?
Duncan Russell: The challenge was to push it as far as it would go but still be able to match it all up. When I saw the first rushes coming back from Australia and Southern Africa, I knew we were onto something special. I had never seen natural history made with such visual flamboyance, and the use of anamorphic lenses for large parts was a masterstroke.

The directors encouraged me to take things into the cinematic realm, not to be restrained by existing styles and to find a visual language that pushed at the edges of what a “nature show” could look like. I am more than proud to be involved.

What tools were used for the VFX?
Silcox: We used SideFX, Houdini and Foundry Nuke. The power and flexibility of these tools make delivering cutting-edge visuals possible. We manage and render our VFX with ShotGrid and Deadline, which are both essential components of our pipeline.