DESCENT – Sound Design + Feedback Process

(Outcomes – IN1, GR1, GR4, PER1)

In my capacity as the supervisor for OG Productions managing the film Descent, I’d solicited a list of ideas from the films director about the audio dimension within a week of agreeing the services we would be providing for the film. These were perfunctory in terms of specific links to the film, as would be expected as this stage since no script or storyboard had been completed, but were detailed in terms of reference points from other films. There was also a list of potential choices of diegetic source music tracks for a song playing from a radio at some point in the potential script, as a reference point. At first glance many of these were highly unlikely to be clearable in the context of the film as the film-makers were keeping their options open and requested we clear any material required for the soundtrack for use at film-festivals and for online use in portfolio. [IN1]

Upon arrival of a script and storyboard for Descent some weeks later, the audio team read through the script together in round-table fashion. I’d insisted on this process for OG Audio’s three longer films as it was obvious that our collaborative approach to work could very easily have translated into creative isolation for the supervisors responsible for the less ‘desirable’ films (for example, as some scripts appeared stronger than others, or because of genre preferences for the team) in the pre-production stages. In the case of Descent the ideas session gave rise to two different directions for music for the film, a minimalist approach from Matt and a much more aggressive underscore heavy idea from Alice though with plenty of crossover in terms of pallette and timbre between the two – I felt Alice’s choices were likely better for the film initially. Potential recurrent motifs and key scenes for audio were isolated and a scratch sound-plan with an overview of these ideas created. [IN1 + GR1 + GR4]

Set Recce + Audio Script Meet

I was keen to solicit as much feedback as possible throughout the process of liason with the film group, so this plan was then cross-referenced with the director on a page by page basis at the set-recce and meeting pictured above, enabling me to tweak the plan more to their liking with almost everybody involved in the production present. For example, my preference for a relatively music heavy film was overturned as the director clearly preferred the subtler, more minimal approach to the music design as we described it, and as such I asked Matt to provide the score and music for the film. The meeting also yielded useful discussion on several overall balance issues within the sound design of the piece, such as how far we should be ‘borrowing’ from horror and thriller genres influencing the piece, tropes which were initially suggested by the original reference material provided by the director – It’s more thriller than horror, but only just. [GR4]

This session basically concluded formal pre-production on sound design, though some later correspondence and a second meeting were required to finalise specific elements and introduce a late addition to a scene suggested by the director in the form of an inner monologue which wasn’t present in the script, and which required specific recording time. This became one of several bones of contention in the sound design throughout, the other being scene 3’s radio music cue.

This process enabled me to piece together a master document of specific devices and the general audio arc drawn from the rough sound plan formed the basis for any team members working on the audio for the film in post, and which can be referred to by the director throughout the production.

However, no battle-plan survives contact with production and elements of this sound-script were dropped or changed in reference to the pictures as they arrived, and as the film moved into post I kept up the informal opportunities for the director to feedback on our work as they would often pop in for a listen whilst we were working on the piece. I concluded the feedback process with one more formal meet with the production team post picture-lock and after dialogue editing, foley and composition were complete but prior to mixing, roughly a week before deadline. I also requested our formal feedback at this time by way of the online feedback form I constructed for our use – The responses for Descent can be seen here – which was universally positive, best summed up in the response to an open question which I’ve lifted as a testimonial ‘…the team are extremely professional and skilled at what they do, they have the ability to transform a simple idea into something exceptional.’ [IN1]

Reflecting on this process, it was a good example of a creative collaboration between this audio team, and the director and her team. Ideas, approaches and plans were constantly being tabled, revised, filtered and discarded and the design input was spread roughly as evenly as the workload. The music decision was the main learning aspect for me, since having two composers working on the project in preproduction enabled me to present to vastly distinct approaches to the project in the early stages in some detail, thus prompting the director to a stronger vision of her musical requirements. [PER1]

———————- 900 Words

KEY POINTS – 

Process of liasing with director about sound design requirements during pre and post production – Professional practice, Process Management,

  • [IN1] To successfully manage the provision of service by the business for the film Descent with regard the assignment of resources, specialisms and working time, liason with the director, editor and producer on a practical and creative level, and communication of information on their needs and requirements for the piece, in order to appraise the efficacy of the collaborative approach to working on the piece – (Supervisor and Company Officer)
  • [GR4] To conceive, compose, source and / or produce music to client specifications that synergistically supports the other components of their films.

Driving the collective creative process – Process Management

  • [GR1] To professionally operate as a small to medium size company (or other recognisable business entity) in the audio production / post-production field might.

Reflection on learning – Individual reflection on learning and team role.

  • [PER1]  To develop a better understanding of the pros and cons of business structures, processes, regulations and agreements which might enable film audio producers to collaborate on multiple projects.

 

RESEARCH – Intellectual Property + Omni-Gaffer

(Addresses outcomes – GR1, GR2, PER1)

Approaching the work as a larger group this term requires us to consider the potential real-world management of such activity. As such, I will briefly discuss our decisions for splitting up of credit in the context of Omni-Gaffer Productions (which I cover in more detail in my post about contracts here) provide an overview of some issues with intellectual property we’ve researched, and discuss the possible business structures we might use to enable our work.

Five parties constitute Omni-Gaffer Productions, and it’s the agreement between these five parties to work together on the film projects at hand which really brings that business into being. Obviously, no money is changing hands for the work, but credit will be due for work in the academic context and it’s this which drove us to formalise our collaboration in this way. We hoped that doing so would enable us to carry out more ambitious work (by providing more comprehensive services to a larger number of films this term), in that researching and operating something akin to a formal business structure would go some way to breaking down a situation we’ve identified at university as something akin to silo mentality found in corporate literature:

Silo mentality is an attitude found in some organizations that occurs when several departments or groups do not want to share information or knowledge with other individuals in the same company. A silo mentality reduces efficiency…‘ (investopedia.co.uk – emphasis in original) [GR1 + GR2]

In the case of creative work at university, it is more the sharing of labour (rather than knowledge specifically, though the latter tends to follow) which is avoided because students do not see the value of collaborating outside of their small groups within the context of their own disciplines, usually because they believe they will receive no formal academic credit for doing so and, obversely, are often hostile to the implicit idea that others will be unfairly rewarded for work they themselves have not carried out. As such, we were interested in making sure formal rewards would be shared between the parties to the Omni-Gaffer Productions workload in the hope that this would incentivise closer collaboration and increase our efficiency as a team.

I have tended to break the work on the five films we’ve carried out into two categories – Services and Creative. Examples of services would be location audio, dub mixing, foley and editing, where creative would be compositional work. The key distinction between these is whether or not they entail the creation of intellectual property, such as the composition of a new musical work for the use of the film, and this creation of intellectual property problematises the situation we’ve developed somewhat when we transcribe it to the real world.

Basic first principles of intellectual property: ‘Intellectual property is something unique that you physically create. An idea alone is not intellectual property. For example, an idea for a book doesn’t count, but the words you’ve written do.’ and at the point a person creates, a copyright is also created- ‘Copyright protects your work and stops others from using it without your permission. You get copyright protection automatically…‘ (www.gov.uk).

With regards to music specifically, this gives rise to the potential for two types of renumeration for works in the form of mechanical and performance royalties. Mechanical royalties are payable on the copying or reproduction of a song or work, where performance royalties become payable when the work is aired in public, such as on television or the radio. These royalties are relevant to the university project because they can provide a longer tail of income (unlike services for which payment would generally be rendered upon completion) which should be properly accounted for if the collective has been involved in the production of the intellectual property (such as several songwriters collaborating on a song) as a future stream of income, and because the rights governing their use must be established in the specific context of each film and Omni-Gaffer Productions, and between the individual composer or composers and the collective body that is Omni-Gaffer Productions. [PER1]

I deal with these latter two specific agreements in another post, and will here concentrate on research carried out on the specifics of intellectual property as it relates to production by students in the context of a university course.

There was initially some question as to whether IP created by students would be controlled by the university, given the university’s role as facilitator and the argument that creation of IP is often facilitated by use of the university’s equipment, giving it as an entity some claim to proceeds generated from IP’s. We were referred to the university’s policy on  student IP which states ‘The University of Lincoln acknowledges that its students own the IP in materials that they create in the course of their studies with the University unless there is a written agreement to the contrary.’  but that …’Students enrolled with the University may be required to assign their IP to the University in a number of circumstances which will require them to complete and sign a Student Intellectual Property Rights Agreement.’  (University of Lincoln)

Furthermore, the wider policy on intellectual property states that ‘The product of work carried out with the benefit of the University environment (including facilities, resources, expertise and intellectual assets) constitutes Intellectual Property that should be owned, protected and used by the University for the benefit of the University specifically and for the benefit of society more generally.‘ (University of Lincoln).

Whilst this seems to be a case of the students retaining IP unless they sign it away, there is a conflict evident between the general policy claim and the student policy claim where IP can be considered the product of work carried out utilising university facilities and advice, and where ambiguity exists it’s usually a good idea to seek advice, which I did.

Barry Turner is a senior lecturer with a specialism in media law who, upon consultation, pointed out that these matters are ultimately rooted in the laws protecting consumers in the UK. He referred me to the Competition and Markets Authorities Guidance for Higher Educational Institutions, and in particular page 48:

“…In general, HE providers will not have an automatic statutory claim to intellectual property (IP) generated by students given that they are not employees, but many HE providers do set out rules about IP ownership in their IP policy/terms and conditions. Undergraduate students can generate significant IP products, for example in creative sectors this could include designs, artworks and writings.

5.33 A term that has the object or effect of changing the ownership of IPRs from the position that would exist under the general law is potentially unfair. Where IPRs are created by a student during their time studying and they would belong to them under the general law, the starting position should be that they retain the IPRs.

5.34 A blanket term that applies so that all students’ IPRs (for example, all written work, creations, inventions and discoveries) are assigned by students to the HE provider, regardless of the circumstances of study or the type of course, may be open to challenge as unfair under unfair terms legislation.

 The key distinction is between an employee and a consumer, though there is also a further question as the ability of the university to compel a student to sign away these rights which I will digress from tackling here, but sufficed to say LSM student IP’s have significant protection under law. [PER1]
 ———————————————— 1200 Words

KEY POINTS – 

How and why OG exists – Professional practice

  • [GR1] To professionally operate as a small to medium size company (or other recognisable business entity) in the audio production / post-production field might.
  • [GR2] To organise and fulfil an operating strategy and schedule which deals with multiple productions simultaneously, and which maximises efficiency and minimises issues or risks to delivery.

Details of intellectual property situation at university and relevant laws – Research

  • [PER1]  To develop a better understanding of the pros and cons of business structures, processes, regulations and agreements which might enable film audio producers to collaborate on multiple projects.

 

P + P – Omni Gaffer Production Schedule

(Outcomes – GR1, 2)

This post is a quick visual precis of the planning process for the work we carried out, which we kept track of with a google calendar. Each film is colour-coded, as are planned absences and important dates etc. [GR1, 2]

This was our production schedule at the beginning of March, with each film’s post requirements married to facilities bookings –

Production schedule at beginning of March
Production schedule at beginning of March
Production schedule at beginning of March
Production schedule at beginning of March

This was the production schedule after we reorganised post facilities bookings and attempted to squeeze work into other facilities –

Production schedule at beginning of March
Production schedule after facilities cancellations
Production schedule at beginning of March
Production schedule after facilities cancellations

…and this is how the schedule looked as the final week approached –

OG Productions Calendar 3 - Final Week

—————————- 130 Words

Key Points

Evidence of forward-planning and adaptation of organisationProcess Management

 

  • [GR1] To professionally operate as a small to medium size company (or other recognisable business entity) in the audio production / post-production field might.
  • [GR2] To organise and fulfil an operating strategy and schedule which deals with multiple productions simultaneously, and which maximises efficiency and minimises issues or risks to delivery.

 

P + P – Progress Report – March

(Outcomes – GR1, 2, 3, 4 + IN1 + PER4)

With completion of our final shooting day on Thursday 24th March, production has now wrapped on all of the five films we’re working on, and even with two shoots substantially over-running their initial dates and requiring numerous reshoots we are currently on track for picture-locks for all of the films more or less on time – all of them are scheduled for today, basically. We have also made  inroads into some substantial aspects of post production for three of the films over the last few weeks, mainly due to a policy of consistently badgering editors for work in progress cuts of the work which have enabled the members of the team not tied up with location work to make a head start on post-production. The team have also been extremely effectively covering one another for location work, with boom ops and supervisors operating interchangably based on who’s available on any given day. [GR1,2,3]

Amusingly, in terms of our expectations vs the reality of production, the most outwardly-organised group of film-makers with the most ambitious ideas in pre-production have ended up being the most heavily behind schedule, whilst the production team with whom we had a horrendously complex experience last semester that caused their project to overrun by some months (and from whom we half-expected issues this term) ran an extremely efficient shoot which completed without need to recourse to their contingency day and without any significant issues whatsoever. [IN1]

Composition is as good as complete for one picture and underway for two others, with work in progress scratch-tracks having been demoed to the relevant supervisors and the rest of the team for feedback purposes in all those cases. Supervisors have remained in close contact with both directors and editors (in some cases these are the same person) for the films they’re managing, and we are now beginning a process of adapting the initial audio plans for our films to the reality of the pictures as they arrive. [GR1,2]

The sci-fi leaning films are the best examples of this process. Since it is extremely difficult to realise a convincing sci-fi vision with little experience or budget, the two films with sci-fi themes have tended to underplay the futuristic elements visually a little. This leaves more room for the audio to do the work of signifying and world-building, but also requires a deft directorial stance not to allow the audio to undermine the visuals where these haven’t quite matched the director’s initial vision. The picture must always dictate the audio and even if the director’s original vision for a scene was much more interesting from a sound design perspective it’s necessary to rein in the largesse at times. [GR4]

In terms of my own contribution, I’ve been on-set for three of the five films including managing the entire location audio operation and subsequent transfers and admin for Descent, have contributed considerably to sound design and foley aspects of Immort and Feel Good, such as they are completed at the moment. As we’ve got into the momentum of production with the crews, administrative requirements for the project have thankfully slackened off somewhat. [PER4]

My hours spent on the project for March have broken down roughly as follows, not including academic aspects such as blogs or research –

March Total = 101
Admin – 16
Meets – 7
Location – 52
Creative Work – 24.5
Other – 1.5

Our main issue this month has been facilities, as mooted in February’s report. In order to alleviate the pressure on our favoured workspace our institution took the insane decision to cancel 12 of our 38 booked sessions and drastically shorten another 8. This destroyed our post-production schedule at a stroke, and created a veritable storm of admin in planning and rebooking work. We tried to rationalise this into real world terms as if some kind of technical catastrophe had befallen the facility, but practically we have lost any hint of a margin for error on the part of any of the films and experienced another ballooning of administrative time for the project as a consequence. [GR1,2]

The main impact of this complication in terms of the team was morale, since most of us were flat-out on set with little time to think about the ramifications or spend time replanning our post work for the films. As the situation here is now somewhat fluid (it is impossible to say whether the Sound Theatre will actually be available to use for two days of each week until we get to the day), we are setting our work priorities on a week by week basis, with desired outcomes for each film set at the production meeting at the beginning of said week. We’re confident we can manage the films as long as they remain on schedule which, at the present time, largely appears likely.

In the interest of staying ahead of the game the priority for each supervisor going forward is now to decide who will be performing the final mixing of each of their films and where this person will be performing said mix, and then setting a deadline for it’s completion, the latter preferably in confluence with the director of their film. Aside from the benefit of a solid deadline, this will enable a process of centralisation of the data from aspects of audio production for each film which is now being split across multiple people in different environments (our composers are tending to work at home, for example) which will hopefully avoid too many data management and compatibility issues as the aspects of the films come together. [GR1, 2]

——————————————– 950 words

KEY POINTS – 

Overview of situation generally for the project and specifically for the film Descent –Professional practice, Process Management.

  • [GR1] To professionally operate as a small to medium size company (or other recognisable business entity) in the audio production / post-production field might.
  • [GR2] To organise and fulfil an operating strategy and schedule which deals with multiple productions simultaneously, and which maximises efficiency and minimises issues or risks to delivery.
  • [IN1] To successfully manage the provision of service by the business for the film Descent with regard the assignment of resources, specialisms and working time, liason with the director, editor and producer on a practical and creative level, and communication of information on their needs and requirements for the piece, in order to appraise the efficacy of the collaborative approach to working on the piece – (Supervisor and Company Officer)

Breakdown of work carried out in March Contribution

  • [GR3] To provide a professional standard of service in respect to location sound recording and post-sound design / mixing.
  • [GR4] To conceive, compose, source and / or produce music to client specifications that synergistically supports the other components of their films.

Collective creative process – Process Management

  • [GR1] To professionally operate as a small to medium size company (or other recognisable business entity) in the audio production / post-production field might.
  • [GR2] To organise and fulfil an operating strategy and schedule which deals with multiple productions simultaneously, and which maximises efficiency and minimises issues or risks to delivery.

Contribution specifics Contribution

  • [PER4] To contribute extensively to multiple film productions.


Reflection on process of adapting audio plans and outcome of facilities issues– Individual reflection on learning and team role