ingmar bergman makes a movie postproduction let's fast-forward here. there! let's stop there.back up a little. stop right there.now forward again. there. right there.- where she sits down. let's mark that. let's continue. let's see now.
here's where she comes in. stop. back up a little. right there. now forward. okay. and back up again. wait. forward again. right there! that should be okay. - do you want this now?- no, let's move on. why do you cut during movement,and what's the principle behind that?
if ulla will move for a moment,i'll show you. i'll back up a little here. she's sitting down here, right? i'm going to stop and go forward. here we're going froma long shot to a close-up. see the mark there? we'll cut when she sits down. you always cut during movement. that way the flow isn't interrupted.
that way the images don't seem separate from each other. you get continuity. your eyes follow the movementof the body from long shot to close-up. thanks to that movement,you don't get the impression that the movie is jumpingfrom one thing to the next. the eye follows the body movementand doesn't realize that the image changes. so you cut during movement
to create a certain flow. that's the main rule. there are 10,000 exceptions,but that's another story. you began editing on may 4th and finished around june 8th. is that a normal time span? the editing wasn't finisheduntil approximately june 21st. the basic editing was finishedat the beginning ofjune. then there's the neurotic fine-tuning.
we're still not finished with that.you never really finish that part. so six to eight weeksis a pretty normal time span, at least for me. you started with large chunks of film that overlapped. and then you tightened it upbit by bit. film is all about rhythm and breathing. it's about recreatingthe life that was collected
in the film studio. its lifeline, its rhythm and breath. so first you assemble the 400 or 500 scenes that were shot in the studio. you arrange all the scenes in order, roughly the wayyou had envisioned it. let's say the finished filmwill be about 7,000 feet. while the rough cutwill be about 1 1 ,000 feet.
maybe 1 1 ,500. that's a big, heavy, dead mass of film that you later try to bring to life. being extremely careful, you start by taking outthe pieces you don't want. dead pieces. pieces you already knewin the studio you wouldn't keep. shots you took for the actors, or for one reason or another.
after having removedthe obvious shots, you start very carefullyto put together the separate pieces, like we're doing here, changing camera anglesduring movement, for example. at that point, you're downto about 1 0,000 feet, and parts of the filmstart to feel rhythmically alive. certain parts suddenly feel right and full of life. other parts will still feelterribly strange and completely dead.
then you start overfrom the beginning. and this is the really hard part. you need to analyzewhere the problems are. where your thought processwent wrong or a problem arose. it might be in the script, or in footage from the studio, or the problem might behere in the editing. so then little by little, you experimentand try various things.
you reorganize the material, or you shorten certain piecesand lengthen others. you can even changethe order of events, if it wasn't ordered wellin the script. little by little, you kneadthis dead, heavy, bulky mass to create a clean,rhythmic and dynamic line. we're going to take a small segmentfrom the finished movie and view it at different stagesduring the editing process. this is a short scene
in which jonas perssonand his wife visit the priest. the important thing in this sceneis the hesitancy between the characters. the most important thing to conveywas the silence that followed after the priest says,''we must trust god.'' the scene was shot several timesfrom different angles. there's a close-upof gunnar bjã¶rnstrand. there's a long shotof all three of them. there's a close-upof the fisherman and his wife. then they repeat that part, but onlywith a close-up of max von sydow,
which is especially interesting, since it's an example of the director giving instructionsto the actor in the middle of a shot. he wants him to redo the scene. here is the first rough edit. the scene is shownin its full original length, so we'll hear the same thingover and over again. though i can't help him much. not with three kidsand one on the way.
right. everyone feels this dread... to some extent. we must trust god. - cut.-action. do that again.just the last part, gunnar. one more time. cut. action.
a few weeks later, this sequencewas edited more tightly. the interesting part, i think,is how it cuts back and forth between the priest's eyesand max von sydow's, the fisherman's. that little exchange of looksbetween the priest and the fisherman that i found so very expressivewas in bergman's mind unnecessary. everything had already been said. so in the finished version, this scene has a much fasterand lighter rhythm. to mix is to blend sounds.
and when the directoris done editing, he takes the filmto the mixing room. these rolls contain all the sounds that evald andersson,the sound technician, has retrieved from archivesor has created. there are train puffsand train whistles. there's the sound of car brakes, and, of course, all the dialoguethat the actors recorded. bergman explains where he wantsthe various sounds to occur.
ollejacobsson, sound mixer, listens and adjusts the levels. it was my parents'dreamthat i become a clergyman. if you subscribe to the principlethat film is rhythmic, and that it's like musicin that regard, it's almost always wrongto have music in movies. that's like adding music to music. therefore you have to findother acoustic accompaniments. they should alwaysbe added sparingly.
the sounds chosenshould be evocative. they should subconsciously evokein the audience a mood and a feeling to support the main feelingcreated by the images. when you arrive at the final phaseof film production, it's important to make sure that the light levelof the screen at the film studio is the same as at the lab. this is quality control of the prints, a procedure monitored bydirector of photography sven nykvist,
editor ulla ryghe, and gã¶sta lundin from the lab. it's only a few daysuntil the premiere. what about the materials going abroadto america, for example? we have orders for bothmaster copies and duplicates. we've already madeand delivered two duplicates. and will that sufficefor the 1 00 copies in america? i'm sure it won't.we'll need more than that. are there any concernswith this copy?
no. we ran it at the lab yesterday,and i thought it was very nice. - what does sven think?- i think it looks good. there are a few scenes on the first rollthat we're having trouble with. exterior shots of the church.we need to change them a little. - are the dissolves okay?- yes, they're much better. okay. well then. you usually tell new directors to watchtheir own movies with an audience. will you go to the premiere? no, i'll go later, on a saturday,
when the audience is reallydiverse and difficult. it's very informative. how do you mean? well, you can sense whether the movie was made correctly or not. you can tell beyond any doubt. you learn to follow the reaction of the audiencevery precisely. it's as if you havea seismograph inside of you,
with paper rolling through it and a graph being drawn on it. you learn an awful lot from that. what do you mean by ''made correctly''?that your intentions were conveyed? above all, that peoplecan follow along. emotionally, not intellectually. emotionally experience the film. and that they don'texperience dullness, that they don't fidgetor play with candy wrappers.
or that terrible dead silence, when it feelsas if they've all fallen asleep. i've experienced all those things. there's a contradiction in the film. there's love for the swedish church and at the same timea resistance to it. yes, that's probably true. when you leave behind the filming and the work with the script,
and when you have been in close contactwith the material for a long time, certain new things are revealed. this movie has a very strong built-in protest against the waythe swedish church is run these days. there is a bitter and desperate sense that the swedish churchis digging its own grave, in a way. i often think
of what pã¤r lagerkvist once said: that we have to get ridof the holy junk that hides what is holy. can you separate what peopleand critics think from what you yourself thinkabout your work? yes, that's not a problem.i know exactly what i think. the difficulty is thatyou are very naked and exposed in the days surrounding the premiere. it's the same thing with the theater,
when the play is aboutto take on real life, the moment your workmeets the audience. i don't think a play or a filmbecomes a play or a film until it has encounteredthe audience. it's still onlya partially finished product. the work isn't born until that strangeand terrible moment of encounter. i've thought a lot about where those feelingsof fear and terror,
nakedness and powerlessnesscome from, and i think it's because one perceives one's own workas incomplete and unprotected until it's surroundedby the consciousness of the audience. are premieres easierto deal with as the years go by? yes, i think so. i used to experienceterrible panic attacks and a feeling of inferioritythat i found terribly humiliating. i suffered like a dog.
it felt likei'd never get through it. i remember the opening ofsmiles of a summer night. i sat in the audience and thought, ''this is the worst flopi have ever experienced.'' i felt no one laughedor had a good time. they were all so quiet. it was completelyincomprehensible to me that anyone would want to seethe movie after that opening. what is it that's humiliatingin this situation where you feel inferior?
it's the feeling of being judged. what you've envisionedin your innermost heart, that which you've created in the beliefthat it was somehow necessary and that it might benecessary for other people too... is judged unnecessaryor stupid or silly, or that it shouldn'thave been made the way it was. i think that's a sourceof deep humiliation. okay, let's get started.
can we turn out the light? winter light a film byingmar bergman
0 Komentar untuk "winter light"