Being a chameleon

[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.

[philper]

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)

[Henchman]

I've always approached mixing that way.
I never had the opinion that I should force my opinion upon someone who's been workign on the project for god knows how long.
Who am I to come in at the 11th hour and push my artistic ideas on them.

I've always viewed my job as a mixer was to advise and assist the people sitting behind me to realise their vision, if possible, in the time given. Yes, I have ideas and suggestions that I will voice.
But I never fight for my ideas.
If they like them, great. If they don't, oh well. No big deal.
We move on.
I just want everyone to go home happy at the end of the day.
Because a happy client is the most imoprtant thing.

[ggegan]

I'm amazed at the number of people I have worked with who don't feel this way. They may not admit to it, but it's true. They think they are saving the director from themselves or else they just want to see their work stand out, even when it's inappropriate.

I don't want to single out editors, because I know mixers who have their own agendas too, but I often have effects editors come up to me during the mix and whisper in my ear asking me to do something that directly contradicts what the director wants. It might be sneaking an effect back into the mix that the director specifically said to lose, or to turn up effects after being asked to turn them down. Of course I tell them to go negotiate it with the director, though then they'll look at me like I'm a turncoat.

As far as mixers go, I worked with one that changed the mix after the director was gone in a way that was against the director's expressed wishes. And I have worked with one or two others who actually told the director that their taste was flat out wrong. You can guess how that went over.

Neither my partner nor I would ever even consider doing something like that. We might disagree with a director's approach, and offer carefully worded advice if appropriate, but we would never openly contradict a director. Even when you're asked to do something that is professionally embarrassing, which happens to me occasionally, there is generally a way to finesse it so it sort of works. Hopefully the next project will be more artistically satisfying, but meanwhile, just shut up and do your job.

This is why it bothers me when I hear people criticize mixers' work, even if the mix sucks. Sure, there are some mixers that are better than others, but it's highly unlikely you're going to survive as a mixer without a high degree of talent and professionalism. It's just too competitive for a hack to get very far, though it has been known to happen in rare circumstances. If something sounds wacky with the mix, my first instinct is to assume that the mixer was told to do it that way, because that's been my experience.

Being a person who has always been somewhat contemptuous of authority (I'm a child of the sixties after all), this all goes against my nature, but I've learned to separate my personal life from my professional life and have come to appreciate the necessity of showing due respect and subservience when expected. No need to lick boots or anything, but acknowledging the director's authority is important. The process of film making isn't democratic, after all, and it gets very expensive when too many people exert contradicting influences. To me the worst situation of all is when there is no single vision or strong authority leading the project.

[danijel]

Originally Posted by ggegan

This is why it bothers me when I hear people criticize mixers' work, even if the mix sucks.

this also stands for any of the film professions, even the director. there are so many people and factors involved in film production, that i've learned not to criticize any film's aspect negatively. even if something (acting, dialogs, logic, music....) sucks, i abstract it and look for the good stuff, if any.
this attitude also makes watching films more enjoyable, because non of them is perfect.

[dr.sound]

Gary, Phillip and Henchman,
I think that this post is one of the best I've read in years!
I appreciate all your points of view. When our names (Re-Recording Mixers)
are on the opening credits to a Film then maybe I might change my view but until then, it's their Film (The Director and Producers) . They have created it, Financed it, sold the ideas to others . We Mixers come at the very end and we help create the sonic aspect to help on the story telling of the film. We all have pride in what we do, but our sound agenda should be within the content of what the they (Director and Producers) desire.
When we all work as a team and experiment and try things through sound that compliment the film it then becomes quite rewarding.
GREAT POST GUYS!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gary Geegan said:
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.


Phillip Perkins said:
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)

Henchman said:
I've always approached mixing that way.
I never had the opinion that I should force my opinion upon someone who's been workign on the project for god knows how long.
Who am I to come in at the 11th hour and push my artistic ideas on them.


Gary said:
I don't want to single out editors, because I know mixers who have their own agendas too, but I often have effects editors come up to me during the mix and whisper in my ear asking me to do something that directly contradicts what the director wants. It might be sneaking an effect back into the mix that the director specifically said to lose, or to turn up effects after being asked to turn them down. Of course I tell them to go negotiate it with the director, though then they'll look at me like I'm a turncoat.

This is why it bothers me when I hear people criticize mixers' work, even if the mix sucks. Sure, there are some mixers that are better than others, but it's highly unlikely you're going to survive as a mixer without a high degree of talent and professionalism. It's just too competitive for a hack to get very far, though it has been known to happen in rare circumstances. If something sounds wacky with the mix, my first instinct is to assume that the mixer was told to do it that way, because that's been my experience.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Kuba_Pietrzak]

I think, every mix is different as every client is different. Most of my clients expect me to have an opinion and help them to decide which solution could be the best in a particular case. But, of course, if someone has different vision, or perhaps wants to change my ideas, I do it, because it is my job.

From my point of view, our job is to use all our knowledge, experience, talents and any artistic skills as a service which can help other people to achieve their artistic vision. And personally I do not have a problem with it.

I would also like to add, that in many feature films here in Poland, supervising sound editors are often credited in opening credits of a film. Sometimes a rerecording mixer works as a co-supervising editor, so his/her name can also be put in an opening credits.

best regards,
Kuba

[drBill]

Greaty thread ggegan!!! I think we all gravitate towards your aesthetic as we become more experienced. Indeed, the film is not "ours", it belongs to the producer(s)/director and if they want to "mess it up", that's their perogative. Our job is to GRACIOUSLY point out possible pitfalls and then do what they want. If you really hate what they are doing, you can always refuse to do it and quit. Beyond that, do what they want!!

bp

[JoeMilner]

In any point of contention or disagreement with the director, I give my opinion twice. No more, no less. Once doesn't give them a chance to rethink their position, and more than twice is disrespectful. As Phil pointed out, "It ain't my movie".

[seanmccoy]

This is all good stuff to hear! Obviously, directors (or advertising creative directors, or musicians, or...) will ask us to do things we know are a bad idea, or just based on ignorance or misinformation, which is when our diplomatic skills are brought to the fore. But the main thing that keeps me compliant is the memory of the numerous times I had to embarassingly admit that the idea I had thought was ridiculous actually turned out to be really good.

[danijel]

Originally Posted by seanmccoy

This is all good stuff to hear! Obviously, directors (or advertising creative directors, or musicians, or...) will ask us to do things we know are a bad idea, or just based on ignorance or misinformation, which is when our diplomatic skills are brought to the fore. But the main thing that keeps me compliant is the memory of the numerous times I had to embarassingly admit that the idea I had thought was ridiculous actually turned out to be really good.

i love it when a director gives a bad idea! i BELIEVE that ALMOST ANY IDEA, no matter how stupid it is, can be extended to become better than a 'good idea', because a good idea is derived from logic and experience, and is likely to be unoriginal. a 'bad idea', on the other hand, when tweaked, can become a true work of art, because it has a twist, an unexpected factor, an irrational seed embedded into rational form.
all you need is a good attitude - to really try to immerse yourself into director's idea, and extend it. he will be very satisfied (after all, it was 'his' idea originally), and you get the next job.

[drBill]

Some great thoughts on this thread!!!

bumpin' it up!



If everyone could take them to heart, product would be so much better and unique and we'd all live a happier more fulfilled life.