Do film schools do enough to promote good audio?
By Peter Santana

I recently had the pleasure of viewing a number of film school productions and I was astounded at the high level of work being created. The majority of student I recently had the pleasure of viewing a number of film school productions and I was astounded at the high level of work being created. The majority of student films displayed keen attention to filmic detail and were very well produced, however despite all that hard work, some still seemed unprofessional and incomplete. The simple reason being that the sound was often completely neglected.

Avoiding the crucial last step of editing the sound in a film can have very deleterious effects on the viewers’ perception of the quality of the production. For example, although the verite style of shooting eschews conventional steady camera movements, the audience can still watch a ‘shaky’ film and regard it has high caliber (having said that, it does take great skill to shoot that way). The same cannot be said of shaky audio though, and the tolerance level for bad sound is much lower than that for bad shooting. As such, the sound needs to be as level and balanced as possible and in film and television this requires not only good recording, but also good audio editing.

Unfortunately, there are no NLEs that are capable of performing the kind of audio editing tasks that are required for a professional sounding mix. Audio specific editing software (DAWs) can make adjustments down to a microsecond, whereas video-editing software is limited to the length of a frame and usually the editing tools are not tailored to audio making the mixing process extremely frustrating.

Although it is useful for student filmmakers to learn about audio editing, it is not necessary to become proficient. There are up-and-coming audio editors who do just this work and would love the opportunity for real world experience for their own demo reels. I would urge film students to create ties with their local audio engineering schools so that complementary relationships between student filmmakers and student audio engineers can blossom from an early stage. The result would be that otherwise thoughtfully produced films would get a professional sheen and it could form the basis for long-lasting professional networks.

displayed keen attention to filmic detail and were very well produced, however despite all that hard work, some still seemed unprofessional and incomplete. The simple reason being that the sound was often completely neglected.

Avoiding the crucial last step of editing the sound in a film can have very deleterious effects on the viewers’ perception of the quality of the production. For example, although the verite style of shooting eschews conventional steady camera movements, the audience can still watch a ‘shaky’ film and regard it has high caliber (having said that, it does take great skill to shoot that way). The same cannot be said of shaky audio though, and the tolerance level for bad sound is much lower than that for bad shooting. As such, the sound needs to be as level and balanced as possible and in film and television this requires not only good recording, but also good audio editing.

Unfortunately, there are no NLEs that are capable of performing the kind of audio editing tasks that are required for a professional sounding mix. Audio specific editing software (DAWs) can make adjustments down to a microsecond, whereas video-editing software is limited to the length of a frame and usually the editing tools are not tailored to audio making the mixing process extremely frustrating.

Although it is useful for student filmmakers to learn about audio editing, it is not necessary to become proficient. There are up-and-coming audio editors who do just this work and would love the opportunity for real world experience for their own demo reels. I would urge film students to create ties with their local audio engineering schools so that complementary relationships between student filmmakers and student audio engineers can blossom from an early stage. The result would be that otherwise thoughtfully produced films would get a professional sheen and it could form the basis for long-lasting professional networks.

To be directed to the Mundo Fox website please click on picture.

Mundo Fox is a Game Changer
By: Adriana Cornejo

When you think of Spanish-­‐language television what is the first thing that comes to your mind? Telenovelas? Variety shows? Cleavage?

Well, hang on to those tatas because it looks like Mundo Fox wants you to know that there’s a market full of Latino-­‐Americanos that are craving some American style Spanish-­‐language programming.

Young, bilingual, Americanized Latinos are the primary target, but don’t count Abuela out just yet. She’s enjoying CSI in SAP mode just fine, for now-­‐-­‐-­‐you know, that button on the remote you never push? Its there for those Spanish speakers who would prefer to hear, say, ABC News in Spanish. And who’s to say she and her grand-­‐daughter couldn’t both bond over a TV series, completely stylized to not only look American, but have an American story-­‐telling formula, and with a Spanish speaking cast? The possibilities to find, target and build an audience are endless, and Mundo Fox knows it.

As a Mexican-American female independent producer and writer, I personally welcome the change. Not just because I hope Mundo Fox will like the two sitcoms I have been trying to sell to virtually any Spanish-­‐language network that would listen, but because I believe in this cause.

The number one response I got from pitch meetings with those other big Spanish-­‐ language networks was that my shows were too edgy for their audiences. Apparently their audiences are more interested in variety shows, and international telenovelas, featuring actors and actresses famous in their audience’s home country. I was asked to “sex up” my shows, adding a hot girl here and there, with just the right amount of buffoonery to give the audience a hearty laugh. In short, when it comes to the idea of a more Americanized Spanish-­‐language TV show I get a lot of, “Why fix it if it isn’t broken?” My response is simply that even if it’s not broken, everything could use a little updating and polishing once in a while. Spanish-­‐language programming in the United States is no exception.

I don’t necessarily feel good about the fact that it’s Rupert Murdoch’s company that will be launching this game-­‐changer of a network. As of late, his brand has not been brooding well in the media, but this aside, I must commend News Corporation for taking this bold move. It’s a move that I believe will prove just how much US Latinos are ready for this kind of TV.

The tide has turned on the US population of Latinos. We’re not all just a bunch of recent immigrants who don’t speak a word of English. We’re 2nd and 3rd generation Latinos educated in American schools and speaking, or at the very least understanding two languages, and trying to preserve the good of our ethnic backgrounds. News Corporation seems to understand these facts about US Latinos, so much so that they’re banking on it.

My advice? Go have that awesome spec pilot you wrote, translated into Spanish, and get yourself into a Mundo Fox pitch meeting. I know I will.

“My mission in life is not merely to survive, but to thrive; and to do so with some passion, some compassion, some humor, and some style” - Maya Angelou

Working with Maya Angelou
By Kathryn O’Kane

Last year I had the good fortune to produce the OWN flagship series “Oprah Presents: Master Class,” which won an NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Variety Series. It was a privilege to dive deep into the lives of such accomplished people.

I’ve heard it said many times that in order to grow, we need to stretch ourselves, and this series pulled me in many directions. At times I was jumping among 5 edit rooms at once and crisscrossing the country to grab interviews as we told the stories of Diane Sawyer, Jay Z, Sidney Poitier and Oprah herself. Putting together 10 hours of television for a brand new network was not easy, and it required the effort of a lot of talented people on the MC team.

My favorite episode is Dr. Maya Angelou’s, and Alyse Spiegel did an amazing job editing earlier versions and nailing the structure. This episode was also one of the most challenging for me in part because of Angelou’s prolific body of work. I felt overwhelmed by the weight of her accomplishments. How can you take an entire life and boil it down to an hour of television? Because this series is called Master Class, Oprah wanted us to focus on life lessons – lessons that helped to guide them or teach them through trial and error along the way.

The lesson that was the most striking for me was the importance of finding your passion. I know it’s trite, but I felt like Angelou was speaking to me personally. Our talented archival producer, Stephanie Palumbo, secured the rights to an obscure film of young Maya singing and dancing as “Miss Caylpso” in 1957. Here was a woman early in her career, oozing Calypso cool in her column dress and bare feet, a world away from the poet laureate she would become. In our interview Angelou says, “I had loved to dance, I was a dancer and then my knees went bad and I had to give it up. As a young woman, the only thing I ever loved was dancing and writing. I didn’t love singing. I wouldn’t sacrifice for singing. You can only become great at that thing you’re willing to sacrifice for.” Amen!

We conducted the interview at her home in North Carolina. After it was over and the crew were breaking down the lights, I noticed Angelou sitting by herself at the dining room table doing a crossword puzzle; so I went over and we had a chat that lasted nearly an hour. It was lovely to learn that as much as she enjoys telling a good story, she loves to hear one, too. I told her that “The Heart of a Woman” was my favorite of her books. Suddenly, the generations between us dissolved as we swapped stories about old boyfriends. I’ll never forget how she threw her head back and laughed at a spectacularly disastrous relationship that I was describing. I will cherish the moment as a career highlight always.

For more information on Kathryn O’Kane, please visit her website.

For more about Maya Angelou you should check out www.mayaangelou.com

TV Studio Crew

Rules for Making TV
By Ron Fried

I’ve been a TV producer for over thirty years, but I think I can lay out my basic rules for overseeing a TV series in less than 500 words. Here goes…

Gossip and Whispers
The executive producer usually makes one or two decisions that everyone on the staff knows are stupid. Find out what the staff is saying behind your back—and then fix it. If they see it, the viewer sees it.

The Crew Knows
This is a corollary to the above. If you want to know if the show you’ve just wrapped is any good, take a look at the crew. If they seemed pleased—as opposed to relieved—you’ve likely done a good show.

Don’t Blame the Crew
On good productions, the staff and the crew get along. On bad productions, the staff and the crew bitch and moan about each other. If you detect grumbling, you’ve got a problem.

Everyone Wants Praise
Always give credit where it is due. Even seemingly cynical TV types secretly want to know they’re appreciated. So be generous with praise when it is warranted.

Tension
A wise director once told me, “Without tension, there’s no TV.” This a key part of what makes everything from “Pawn Stars” to Letterman’s “Top Ten List” successful: the audience is promised something (a good laugh or the price of that antique gun); the tension continues while the jokes or facts are delivered; and then the promise pays off.

Format is King
Take “Saturday Night Live.” The format hasn’t really changed since it went on the air in l975. Viewers know what to expect—which makes them comfortable. On SNL there’s the host monologue, then sometimes a piece of tape, then a commercial, then…well, you know the rest.

On-Talent is also King
It’s very hard for a TV show to be better than its on-air talent. As soon as a good host or guest or reporter walks in front of the camera, you become a much better producer. (This is also true of good cameramen, jib operators, and the like: when they’re good, the producer is good.)

Good Talent Equals Passion
When Bob Costas talks about baseball, it seems like the most important thing in the world. When Rachel Maddow discusses politics, it seems like the most important thing in the world. Passion makes for compelling TV.

Produce to the Talent’s Strength
Producers are drawn to idiosyncratic individuals. Bad producers then try to make the talent generic—i.e. just like everyone else on TV. This is a huge mistake. Find ways to
let the talent do the things he or she does well. Avoid things they do badly. If they can’t read a prompter, write short copy. Etc.

Cut, Cut, Cut
If you think that an edited piece should be shorter, cut it. You almost never miss the stuff you’ve lost. And the audience won’t miss it either.

Don’t Eat the Donuts
Circles of fried dough are omnipresent in production. Resist temptation. No one ever looks back on their day and thinks, “I’m so glad I ate those donuts.”

There you have it, the distilled wisdom of my decades in the business in 482 words.

LATV FEST ’10 brings together creative TV & digital content producers
with development execs, agents, advertising executives, technology
solution providers.

July 12-15, 2010

Hyatt Regency Century Plaza Hotel

Expanded 4-day conference: *Networking events *Enlightened panel
discussions *Never before seen screenings *Guaranteed Pitch Meetings
(Register ASAP for priority access)

A La Carte Offerings: *Pitch Critiques *Mentor Round Robins *Premium
Pitch Packages

Featured Speakers: *Howie Mandel, Actor/Comedian/TV Host, David Hudson,
TBS/TNT *Mark Horowitz, NCIS *JD Roth, 3Ball Productions *Kevin Pollak,
Kevin Pollak’s Chat Show *Michelle King & Robert King, THE GOOD WIFE

Register Now with Promo Code 10MATCH for a $100 savings!

www.latvfest.net

Now, however, things are again shifting, as Leno makes ready to leave “The Tonight Show” and instead take over the 10p.m. slot just before it.  Word on the streets (a.k.a. various articles and blogs) is that Leno is unhappy with his imminent departure, as he isn’t quite ready yet to give up his seat.  Conan O’Brien, his future replacement, has popped by the show a couple of times, and while not necessarily frosty, lately his and Jay’s relationship has been merely cordial at best.

On the whole, however, everything seems to be fine between Leno and O’Brien, most likely because any rift that’s developed these few months has less to do about them, and more about Leno versus NBC.  Jay is, after all, heading to that 10p.m. show, which gives Conan a great gift in the form of a lead-in to his own time slot.  Besides, Conan was selected to take Jay’s place, so if Jay wants to blame anyone, it should be the executives at NBC, not Conan.  Leno has known for some time that his run on “The Tonight Show” would come to an end regardless of ratings – that he would go out on a high note.  But apparently it’s easier to talk about pulling the plug than it is to actually do it.

Conan actually emerges from all of this the clear winner.  With Leno staying in house, as it were, O’Brien avoids generating the perception that he ran Leno off; Leno fans, in turn, will be more likely to forgive O’Brien for hosting “The Tonight Show”, and may even tune in to watch him.  Also, by staying at NBC, Jay eliminates the possibility of popping up on another network as a time-slot rival (a move that some networks hoped would happen, considering Jay was said to be upset with NBC).

In the end, the new late night shift isn’t affecting “The Tonight Show” so much as it is the late-night shows on other networks.  Comedy Central, ABC, and CBS are toying with various ideas in order to take advantage of the upheaval that will come when Conan replaces Jay (ABC is even considering killing off “Nightline”, and moving Kimmel up earlier).  It will be interesting to see how this current round plays out, and who’s left standing once the bell rings.

“Dustbuster” was the loose name given to the job of digital colorist assist-assist, though the job title was not exactly accurate (in fact, it always seemed an afterthought, something to give us some sort of hierarchy within the company). I mean, we were working a film post-production job, in an assistant capacity, beneath the Colorist Assists, so I suppose you could give us that particularly cumbersome label. However, to save time and spare confusion, I and my fellow workers were called dustbusters, as we were literally responsible for removing dust (as well as scratches, and blotches) from every single frame of every single film the company took on. The colorists needed an impeccably pristine “canvas” with which to do their work, and that’s where we came in.

The process for cleaning film is simple enough to describe on the surface: they would scan the film digitally, and would then send the files to the main computers in our workspace. The film was then broken up into sections, with each section typically assigned to one of the nine or so workstations. Each workstation was loaded with the company’s proprietary software program, which would run the film frame by frame, shot by shot, and scene by scene. The dustbusters would then literally clean the film, by digitally removing every scratch or hair or discoloration. We did this by surrounding the offending mark with a box, which would then scan the next frame for a similar image to render. If there was little movement, the job was simple; if there was a lot of movement, we then had to tweak the box to get it as close as possible to blemish-free.

If this sounds mundane, it’s because it was. An eight hour shift, locked in a small, dark, windowless room, working at a cubicle, and staring at the same couple of thousand frames of film all day isn’t exactly how I would describe the fun side of Hollywood. But more than that, it served to illustrate just how many production jobs there truly are, and how varied they can be. Now, whenever I look at a film’s budget, I can’t help but be impressed by the number of people working behind the scenes, on the smallest details, people whose names will never appear in the credits; I think of the countless production companies, each specializing in an aspect of the filmmaking process. And I marvel at just how big and yet small this town can feel.