|
|
|
Dody Dorn
|
Dody Dorn grew up with the film industry in her blood.
Her father worked as a set builder/designer and later as a movie
producer. She was still in high school when she began working at
his sound stage, Hollywood Stage, where she made the contacts that
would ultimately allow her to find work in her chosen field–motion
picture editing.
After working a number of production positions, including
assistant to the producer, script supervisor and assistant location
manager, as well as production assistant on Elvis, (the John
Carpenter MOW), she was offered the chance to assist that film’s
editor, Chris Holmes. Dorn found a home in the cutting room. Earlier
this year she received an Oscar nomination for her work on Christopher
Nolan’s Memento. Recently she has teamed up with Nolan again
for Insomnia, the much talked-about psychological thriller
starring Al Pacino, Robin Williams and Hilary Swank. Here Dorn talks
about the various roles she’s taken on in the film business, why
she gravitated toward editing, and her second go-around with Chris
Nolan.
Jennifer Wood (MM): You’ve worked in so
many positions in this industry, including producing, directing
and acting. How did you decide the editing room was the place you
liked best?
Dody Dorn (DD): I knew through my work on films
in post-production, both as a sound editor and a film editor. After
seeing so many films and educating myself about film history and
filmmaking, I grew to love cinema. I worked as an assistant editor
until 1982, when I started working as an assistant sound editor.
I learned the craft of sound editing and moved on to being a sound
editor and supervising sound editor. I started my own company, Sonic
Kitchen, in 1986 and continued working in sound through 1999. My
company did well and I was getting jobs on bigger and bigger films,
and I got a lot of recognition for my work. I was the supervising
sound editor on James Cameron’s The Abyss, and we won a Golden
Reel award for Best Sound for that film, which was also nominated
for an Academy Award for Best Sound. Shortly after that, I decided
to move back to picture editing. I found, as my business became
more successful, I was moving further and further away from the
creative work that had attracted me in the first place and becaming
more of a business person–something I wasn’t interested in at all.
I felt working as a film editor would bring me closer to the center
of the creative process of filmmaking and collaborating with directors,
which was what I loved most.
MM: What do you think is the biggest misconception
people have about what a film editor does? What was your own biggest
misconception when you were first starting out?
DD: The average moviegoer thinks the editor
cuts out all the bad bits. Of course editing a film is an involved,
complicated, collaborative process where the editor combines his
response to the material with his interpretation of the script and
the additional information the director provides through conversation
and analysis of the material. There is also a lot of trial and error
in the editing room. Even if a director has a clear vision of what
he wants, until the images are actually juxtaposed and the rhythm
is defined by the editing, you never really know how it will work.
MM: What are the biggest changes you’ve
seen in your job since first starting out? How has digital technology
changed the way you work?
DD: Because of the AVID and other non-linear
systems and the ability to try many different edits of a film while
being able to keep previous versions, there is probably a lot more
experimenting that goes on. There is also a greater acceptance of
different editing styles and rhythms now than before. MTV is often
referenced as being responsible for that and certainly the non-sequiturs
one can see in a music video at every turn have opened up people’s
minds to using imagery in more non-conventional and experimental
ways. But editing, regardless of the technology, is still editing.
There is still a story to tell and how that is achieved is basically
the same whether you’re editing on a Moviola, a flatbed or an AVID.
Digital technology hasn’t really affected my day-to-day
duties very much. I am still responsible for looking at the material
and putting it together in a cohesive fashion that tells the story
as well as possible. I still need to do this work quickly during
shooting to make sure all the elements are there. The one big change
is that I’m able to work in a more elaborate fashion relative to
opticals, visual effects, sound and music than I would be able to
do on film. If I want to try a dissolve, I can see it right away.
On film, I would have to pull the pieces and send it out to have
a temp dissolve done from the printed dailies. That could take a
day or two. It wouldn’t stop me from working, because I would just
go on with something else while waiting for the temp optical to
come back, but it is not as convenient. I can lay sound and music
in right away and start trying out ideas for a direction to go in
much earlier.
When editing on film, you have to think very carefully
before making a cut. You are working with a daily work picture and
you don’t want to make a bunch of unnecessary cuts and make the
work picture look all messy. But on the AVID, that is not a concern
at all since it is non-destructive. From looking at an edited AVID
work picture, you can never tell where some of the other edits you
once tried are. So once in a while, I edit in a slightly quicker
fashion just to get something put together so I can start working
on refining that.
MM: You’ve worked both on big budget, special-effects
laden films and low-budget indies. Do you have a preference for
one over the other?
DD: I really don’t. I love cinema, and any
story or filmmaker that intrigues me is what keeps me excited about
a project.
MM: What is your process for accepting a
project? What is your preferred method of working?
DD: I start by reading the script. Some films
I reject out of hand if I can’t relate to the subject matter. Occasionally
I will meet on a script that I don’t have strong feelings about
one way or another, because a meeting can push me over into wanting
to work with someone, or they explain their vision in such a way
that piques my interest. Also, a director, writer, or actor whose
work I admire could definitely come into play. One of the most important
things is getting the sense that I would like to sit in a small
dark room with the director for hours, days, weeks and months on
end and that they feel the same way. It is a kind of marriage so
it’s best to make sure it’s going to be enjoyable.
MM: Are you usually close by the set or
do you work remotely?
DD: I like to be in close proximity to the
set. I like to see the set and to be able to communicate with the
director and the DP. I like to have as much communication as time
allows with the director during shooting as to his intent for any
given scene and get his comments on the performances. All of these
reasons are a matter of convenience and quick access to the director
or DP.
But I don’t like to be on the set while shooting is
going on. I prefer to be removed from the actual shooting because
I see it as being a large part of the editor’s job to be objective.
Having been there while something is being committed to film clouds
that objectivity. I need to see the performances and images fresh
for the first time in the screening room while watching dailies,
seeing the film, and not beyond the edges of the frame, as an audience
member would see it. If I know it took them hours to set up a complicated
dolly crane establishing shot, and how hard it was to get all the
elements to fall into place, it will be much harder for me to say
to a director when we’re trying to cut five minutes out of the film–"We
just don’t need this shot."
MM: Before cutting picture you worked steadily
as a sound editor. Is it easy to shift gears when editing for one
sense over another? Could you employ a lot of what you learned as
a sound editor to your work as a picture editor?
DD: I see a finished film as a total product
and I cannot separate (nor do I want to) the various aspects of
the film. The images work in conjunction with the sound and the
music and they need to be considered together, in just the same
way that the rhythm and juxtaposition of the images need to be considered.
I do use my experience in sound all the time. I work with temp sound
and music in the AVID from day one. I may sometimes edit without
sound for technical reasons, but putting sound in follows very close
behind and will definitely affect how I evaluate what I have edited
and will often stimulate changes.
MM: In what ways can a director make it
easier for the editor to do his or her job?
DD: Communication is the most important part
of the director/editor relationship. I love the collaboration with
the director so I am always happy when a director wants to be in
the editing room. I also truly enjoy being immersed in the footage
and the narrative. I go into the story and live with the characters.
If the director is communicative, either directly or obliquely about
his vision for the finished film, I have more to work with. Naturally,
the material speaks a lot for itself, but more information is better.
If there is no communication, I can certainly edit a film, but it
may not be the film the director wanted.
MM: How did you first come to meet Christopher
Nolan and begin work on Memento? I imagine that, at first
read, the script itself was a bit confusing. How closely did you
remain to script? Also, how close did you keep that script to you
while editing?
DD: I met Chris Nolan via a meeting set up
by my agent, Heather Parker, at Innovative Artists. I was fascinated
by the script and had to read it several times before our first
meeting. I did not understand it fully, but knew it was going to
be fun to edit. I had no idea that it would make the impact that
it has made. Many aspects of the film did not reveal themselves
to me until I was editing the pieces together. I used the script
as a very literal blueprint and followed it precisely while editing.
After Chris and I finished his first cut of the film and we watched
it all the way through, we decided to join a couple of the scenes
and then lose a couple jumps to the black and white motel room scenes.
No material was left out, though. The intricate puzzle piece construction
of the film made every moment essential. The black and white scenes
informed the color scenes and vice versa, so it was a delicate balance
of keeping the narrative alive while trying to maintain the disorientation
that was meant to be felt by the audience–all in the name of creating
a viewing experience that most closely mirrored what it must be
like to live life with Leonard’s condition.
MM: Obviously, the structure of Memento was one of the keys to its originality. In what ways did the structure
make it easier for you as an editor? In what ways did it pose unique
challenges?
DD: Most narrative films are conceived first
as a script and editors refer to the script when editing. In the
case of Memento, the structure is definitely part of the
narrative, so it had to be written, performed, shot and therefore
edited with that in mind. I stuck rigidly to the script and needed
to refer to the script more often than I might normally do, because
the natural chronology had been altered. I had to create banners
to run across the entire film to indicate where in the film I was,
because the chronology did not follow the usual logic.
Also, the black and white footage in the motel room
was shot at the end of the shooting schedule, so I needed very detailed
‘scene missing’ banners that indicated exactly what was missing.
A simple ‘scene missing’ banner would not do. I could not make any
changes or adjustments in how the color transitioned to the black
and white until I had those elements adjacent to each other. As
I mentioned, we did make some adjustments to the number of cut backs
between the black and white and color, but not until after completing
the director’s first cut.
MM: You’re back working with Christopher
on your latest project, Insomnia. How has the process changed
for you this time around, if at all?
DD: The main difference in the process is that
Chris and I didn’t have to get to know each other this time around.
We both know and understand how the other works and communicates.
There is a high level of trust.
MM: Whereas Memento was a completely
original story, Insomnia is different in that it is the remake
or retelling of Erik Skjoldbjaerg’s 1997 Norwegian film. What sort
of challenges does this pose to the story and the process of telling
that story? You want to tell the story in a unique way, and the
success of doing that relies heavily on the writing, directing and
editing of the film.
DD: I saw the original Insomnia once
before shooting started, but I did not study it. I was curious to
see what Chris would do to make it different. I knew he was not
the kind of filmmaker to strive to recreate something as a remake,
but rather reinterpret it and create a completely new experience.
I feel that the two films are remarkably different from each other,
considering the fact that the narrative of both is essentially the
same. To me, Skjoldbjaerg’s Insomnia is a nihilistic study
of a bad man doing bad things and Chris Nolan’s Insomnia is a film noir morality tale of a good man having done some bad
things and the consequences he pays.
As for what I wanted relative to similarities and
differences, all I ever want is to manifest a director’s vision,
so going into it knowing that Chris would want to do something different,
I just let it unfold as the film came together. It was a pleasure
to see it happen and to be a part of that.
MM: Projects like Insomnia, where
an older (and sometimes contemporary) film is remade are becoming
more common. If you were given the opportunity to edit the remake
of another film, what would your dream project be?
DD: I would love to see a remake of Il Generale
Della Rovere, directed by Rosselini, be made. I love the film
and think a contemporary interpretation of the character–a swindler
completely without morals and his transformation–would be fascinating
set in modern times.
MM: What do you think is the unique thread
that runs through all your work?
DD: I am a material driven editor. I choose
projects based on material and the filmmakers making it. I look
for a unique vision. I prefer films that are edgy, rather than product
that has been put through the lowest common denominator mill. It
is exciting for me as an editor to work with directors whose creative
minds are exposed through the uniqueness and quirkiness of their
visions.
MM: Any plans to work with Christopher Nolan
again? What’s up next for you?
DD: I would be thrilled and honored to work
with Chris Nolan again. Currently I am reading scripts and looking
for my next project.
Share:
