Miscellany

Coffee, Laphroaig, and Cigars: Condensed Edition

By October 11, 2008No Comments

In the “O Tempora! O Mores!” category:

For all of the anarch­ic energy of his films, [Luis] Bunuel led an orderly life and made his movies the same way. ”He gave me the scripts like a child turn­ing in his home­work, as if he were afraid of what I was going to say,” [pro­du­cer Serge] Silberman said. ”He would only shoot exactly what was in the script. He was abso­lutely pre­pared. With me he made everything in about 48 days. It took him one week to edit. And when the first cut was done, the pic­ture was fin­ished.”—“AT THE MOVIES: Discreet Charm of Bunuel,” Dave Kehr, The New York TImes, May 19 2000

The films that each took a week to edit were The Diary of a Chambermaid (1964), The Milky Way (1969), The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972), The Phantom of Liberty (1974) and ‘That Obscure Object of Desire (1977). Staggering mas­ter­pieces all. 

[Donna Gigliotti] has also been work­ing with [Stephen] Daldry, who with edit­or Claire Simpson is 20 weeks into edit­ing and fin­ish­ing the movie. “Let’s get on with it,” Gigliotti says. “It’s a piece of cake. I’ve been in tough­er straits than this.”—“Rudin Abandons The Reader,” Anne Thompson, Thompson on Hollywood, October 9 2008 

By this meas­ure, some might argue, The Reader should be twenty times bet­ter than any of the above-cited Bunuel films. Think that’s gonna happen?

No Comments

  • colinr says:

    I think that illus­trates that tal­ent and inspir­a­tion don’t occur simply though unlim­ited resources and oodles of time.
    On the sub­ject of Daldry, I thought I’d link to a remix of The Hours as a rave from Adam and Joe!
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4FqJNQ2-K9g

  • Jason says:

    I’ve worked in post-production and I would wager that it would take a week of con­stant view­ing just to get through all the dailies shot for a con­tem­por­ary film. 20 weeks of post-production is not actu­ally a lot of time to shape foot­age shot over sev­er­al months, I’ve cer­tainly worked on films in post-production last­ing much longer than that. While Bunuel, Ford and Hitchcock are great examples of film­makers that shot in a spe­cif­ic style that lends itself to spe­cif­ic edit­ing there are many great con­tem­por­ary film­makers who rely heav­ily on a pro-longed post-production pro­cess: Malick, Fincher and Wong spring to mind but I’m sure there are count­less more. I don’t think any­one would argue against giv­ing those film­makers plenty of time to achieve their vis­ion or feel like they are some­how less pure because they don’t know the exact order of their images while they are shoot­ing them.

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    Good point, Jason. Exactly the sort of argu­ment I was hop­ing to spark here. Although I still don’t think “The Reader” is gonna outdo any Bunuel…

  • Dan says:

    Well, I hate to throw around terms like “vis­ion”, but speak­ing as some­body who has actu­ally made feature-length films on pretty much no money, and then had to edit them, it’s been immensely help­ful to have a fully real­ized idea of what you want before you go in. Really, the key thing I learned from those exper­i­ences was make a damn choice, and unless that choice does­n’t work, just stick with it.
    Of course, Bunuel did­n’t have Harvey Weinstein or Scott Rudin, two men who are, ah, more hands-on that I would ima­gine Mr. Silberman was. I feel bad for Stephen Daldry, but at least if “The Reader” is awful we’ll know it’s not his fault.

  • Jason says:

    Glenn, I don’t expect Daldry to ever match Bunuel with his films but that has more to do with Bunuel being a geni­us than with Daldry’s post-production schedule.
    Dan, I can­’t argue with tech­niques that work for you. However, I do think there are many film­makers that have a less than per­fectly real­ized idea of what they are look­ing to do with a film until they get into post-production. Citing more spe­cif­ic examples: David Lynch turn­ing his dis­carded TV pilot into MULHOLLAND DRIVE or Woody Allen’s tech­nique of schedul­ing a break in the shoot­ing sched­ule to work with an edit­or and see what is work­ing and what is not work­ing, which fam­ously allowed for ANNIE HALL. I don’t per­son­ally think Daldry is on the level of those film­makers but I would rather see the film he wanted to make than the film that the pro­du­cers took away because of fin­an­cial concerns.

  • Dan says:

    Jason, I’m not say­ing be totally inflex­ible, just that you should really go in with a good idea of where you want to be and at least one idea of how to get there.

  • cadavra says:

    Gibson stated he shot 300 hours of foot­age for APOCALYPTO. That’s 10 hours a day, sev­en days a week, for a full month, just to watch everything once. BABEL was 240 hours; same thing with Sundays off. Followed by months sift­ing through it all to find the movie that’s in there some­where. Insanity. Ford shot 90,000 feet on HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY–about 16 1/2 hours. (Yeah, I know, he was a geni­us, too, but still…)
    I.A.L. Diamond said it best: “Films should be edited in the typewriter.”

  • Dave K. says:

    How about that THIRD ver­sion of “The New World,” Glenn? Is it get­ting any bet­ter? How many more years do you think Malick will work on that edit?

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    I haven’t the heart to look at it yet. Seems to have impressed the film’s claque, though.