Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan  I remember when I was younger I thought that my job as a mixer was to grace each film with my personal aesthetic. However, after many years in the industry, I gradually came to the opinion that my job was actually to adapt to the director's, or often the communal aesthetic that surfaced on each film, and to add to it in the spirit of the project - being a chameleon, if you will.
I used to think that by sublimating my own artistic vision to that of whoever was in charge, I was betraying my artistic integrity, but after more than a few reality sandwiches, I realized that I was actually a hired gun whose job it is to assist others in realizing their vision (often when they don't even have one), and that if I do impose my own vision, the project is often best served if I make it seem as though it was the director's ideas and not my own.
I don't look at mixing as the ultimate medium of my artistic expression anymore. Sometimes it happens, but my personal music and graphic arts projects are much more reliable for that. Yet, I still feel extremely fortunate that I have a job that demands sensitivity, creativity and finesse.
I'm just wondering how others look at their creative lives as mixers or editors. |
Pretty much exactly the way you do, in the same trajectory. In my old age I'm no longer confused about who's film it is: not mine. The thing that helped me to this state of mind the most was being a director myself, and having to deal with sound people (among others) who had their own agendas for the project and their methods for doing it. A lightbulb went on, and I was much easier to work with after that. I have projects of my own that reflect my sensibilities and tastes very directly, at work the trick is figuring out what the "creative" people's tastes are to the extent that you can even anticipate what they will want. That is the mark of a true professional in this biz.
Philip Perkins (CAS)