Suzy Sommer, Guido Haesen and Michael Gough
talk about documentaries
talk about documentaries
If you are a BIAFF fan you will be familiar with the work of Suzy Sommer and Guido Haesen from Luxemburg. As a couple, they are unusual because they both make films. They love to travel and often plan their trips around shooting material for their documentaries. This year, at BIAFF 2024, Suzy won 5 stars for Claude, Sarah and Emile shot on a trip to Belle-Île en Mer. Guido won 4 stars and the UNICA Medal for Echoes of Silence, filmed in and around Ypres.
|
Suzy: Research and finding the story
Before a trip, there is preparation. I read a lot of books and travel guides to get some ideas of what I might film. Before our trip to Belle-Île en Mer, I read told the story of a child, Emile, and I thought it would be a good subject for my film. But on the island, it was first hard to find the right location. Then I discovered no-one knew about, or at least wanted to talk about, Emile. So, I took a lot of shots of the island, hoping I would collect enough material to make a film. When I got home, I researched more to find the story of Belle-Île, that I wanted to tell. It is important to make a film that will interest people, something that is more than a collection of pretty pictures. As well as having a strong subject, a good film should tell people something new and, if possible, something surprising. It can sometimes be a struggle. I usually put a film aside for a couple of months, so that when I return to it, I can see it clearly. If I still can’t find the story, I make the best of it and it becomes a holiday film, not for competition. Happily, Claude, Sarah and Emile worked out. I was able to make something to please the audience. |
Stills from Claude, Sarah and Emile
|
|
Guido: Assembling and writing the commentary
We both work on our films in a similar way. We begin by labelling every scene in the raw footage with a title and some useful information. For example, if the film is about animals, we would probably say which animal it is, what the weather is like, and if the animal is active or not. We also classify the quality of the shot – good, very good and so on. We normally have about 400 to 600 shots to deal with. We pause for a week or two or even longer to think about how to create the story from the footage. Then we decide on a working title, and assemble the scenes we want into a rough-cut. Next, we write the commentary. This is so important. It is where we spend most of our time: writing and rewriting 20 to 30 times. The commentary has to fit the images, but shouldn’t just tell the audience what is on screen. It should give them extra information. That's the most difficult thing, but it is what makes a good documentary. We feed the commentary into the computer and get it to read the words aloud. This computer voice is what we put onto the rough cut so that we can check that the words fit the length of the scenes. Then we add the ambient sound and music. Ambient sound can be quiet, almost unnoticeable, but it makes a film richer. We are always the first to see each other’s rough cut and give feedback. We are very critical. Of course we replace the computer voice on the commentary. Some filmmakers use their own voice but we like to find someone whose voice fits the film and who can give the words the right intonation. It adds an extra dimension and emotion. We don’t need to be with the person who is recording the commentary. We send them a copy of the rough-cut film (the one with the computer voice) and ask them to watch it, to get an impression of what the film is about. We don’t want them to try to match their reading with the computer one. Chatting with Michael Gough at UNICA 2023, I told him about Echoes of Silence, and he agreed to record the commentary. |
Stills from Echoes of Silence
|
Michael: Recording the script
I like to look at a rough-cut of a film before I begin. Then I decide what kind of voice would suit. Is it an academic commentary or a person telling their story? Is it someone old or young? How is he feeling? I use those decisions to build the voice I think will work.
To practise, I read the text out loud to myself. When I record, I don’t try to match the timing of the film. The text is split into sections of maybe a couple of sentences or a paragraph and I record with a pause between each of these sections. Then the filmmaker can adjust the length of the gaps by sliding the sections along the timeline and dropping them where they want.
I always like to record in a muffled room, so I use my bedroom. The bed covers are there, I close the curtains and it just softens the sound down a bit. I don’t read a commentary while sitting down. I tried it once and it did not work. I also can’t do it if my hands are caught up holding a piece of paper. I have to be free to move.
I always try to respond to the story I’m telling. Some sections have to be a little bit slower or a little bit more downbeat or whatever.
I record onto my ordinary camera. I put it onto a tripod with the microphone about 6 inches away from my mouth, but not directly in front of me. I don’t want to “pop” into it. I put the script onto a laptop which has a touch screen so I can just slowly scroll down as I speak.
When I begin, I say the name of the film and a version number to identify the recording. Then I say ‘54321’. I have no idea whether technically the ‘54321’ helps to start the microphone but it works for me. If I stumble over a word I just stop. I go back to the beginning of that section and start again.
I stand there expressing the story as best I can to an audience that I imagine are at the other side of the bed.
When I get to the end of version 1, I say ‘right, I'll now do version 2’ and do the full recording again. The pace may be almost identical, but there are now two versions. The filmmaker could put each of them separately onto a timeline, one above the other, and could cut between them choosing their preferred bits.
Occasionally, I've reached the editing stage in my own films and thought: oh, I need to add a new paragraph. I go back and redo the whole commentary because you can't stick a new paragraph in. Even standing in the same place in the same room the acoustic would be different because I’d be talking at a different pace and strength.
Guido told me he was pleased with my recording. I told him, ‘It’s all there in the text you wrote’. What I put into the voice came from his words.
I like to look at a rough-cut of a film before I begin. Then I decide what kind of voice would suit. Is it an academic commentary or a person telling their story? Is it someone old or young? How is he feeling? I use those decisions to build the voice I think will work.
To practise, I read the text out loud to myself. When I record, I don’t try to match the timing of the film. The text is split into sections of maybe a couple of sentences or a paragraph and I record with a pause between each of these sections. Then the filmmaker can adjust the length of the gaps by sliding the sections along the timeline and dropping them where they want.
I always like to record in a muffled room, so I use my bedroom. The bed covers are there, I close the curtains and it just softens the sound down a bit. I don’t read a commentary while sitting down. I tried it once and it did not work. I also can’t do it if my hands are caught up holding a piece of paper. I have to be free to move.
I always try to respond to the story I’m telling. Some sections have to be a little bit slower or a little bit more downbeat or whatever.
I record onto my ordinary camera. I put it onto a tripod with the microphone about 6 inches away from my mouth, but not directly in front of me. I don’t want to “pop” into it. I put the script onto a laptop which has a touch screen so I can just slowly scroll down as I speak.
When I begin, I say the name of the film and a version number to identify the recording. Then I say ‘54321’. I have no idea whether technically the ‘54321’ helps to start the microphone but it works for me. If I stumble over a word I just stop. I go back to the beginning of that section and start again.
I stand there expressing the story as best I can to an audience that I imagine are at the other side of the bed.
When I get to the end of version 1, I say ‘right, I'll now do version 2’ and do the full recording again. The pace may be almost identical, but there are now two versions. The filmmaker could put each of them separately onto a timeline, one above the other, and could cut between them choosing their preferred bits.
Occasionally, I've reached the editing stage in my own films and thought: oh, I need to add a new paragraph. I go back and redo the whole commentary because you can't stick a new paragraph in. Even standing in the same place in the same room the acoustic would be different because I’d be talking at a different pace and strength.
Guido told me he was pleased with my recording. I told him, ‘It’s all there in the text you wrote’. What I put into the voice came from his words.
Suzy Sommer, Guido Haesen and Michael Gough 2024
