¡Colores!; 2127; Paul Barnes, Vietnam, Wide with Audio

of Vietnam and a pot and he had bought the Ho Chi Minh Trail and we showed him that when we did the sequence about the Ho Chi Minh Trail and the bombing that was going on. Can we pause real quick? Oh. Okay. I was getting instructions from her and I didn't want to freak you out, but as much as you're probably used to that. It would be a little awkward. Right. Also, Coutero, as far as starting, do you have any specific instructions for me or just... You don't want me to do a Paul Barnes, thank you. Like I do for mine stuff. Okay. Sure. Sorry to interrupt you. That's okay. I think she's getting pretty close to being ready. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Are you ready? Yeah. If you are. Okay. All right. She said, I don't need to introduce you. We'll just start with the first question.

Okay. As if we're continuing on from before. What do you love about editing? Oh. It's funny. I went to NYU's film school and the school to their credit would allow freshman, sophomore students to try all the different roles so that they could figure out, am I a cameraman? Am I an editor? Am I a director? Am I a writer? Am I a producer? Whatever. So we were switching roles on these little tiny films we're making, two minifilms, three minifilms. And I suddenly discovered that I just loved being in the editing room. I loved taking the raw material that was shot and figuring out how to put it together to make it dramatic and dynamic or comic or, you know, to make this raw footage that when you look at it often seems very dull. But then by the judicious editing of it, you can suddenly bring it to life. And I thought, this is fabulous. I just love doing this, you know. And I also, I'm a bit of an introvert anyway. I'm not an extroverted character. And so the other roles in film usually you had to be much more social and much more aggressive and much more interactive.

And I'm not really that type of person. So I found that the role of the editor because you are one person sitting in the dark like a mole and just doggedly, you know, cutting away and watching that screen hour after hour after hour, it just felt like a natural fit for me. And I get into this funny kind of Zen head space in a way where the world disappears. And honestly, all I can think of is what's in the screen. And I'm totally absorbed in that. And it's like, how do I make this work? What's the next shot I should go to? What's the best piece of music? Do I need a sound effect here to punch something in? Should I put in the close-up here? Is that the right image? And the wheels on my head are going like crazy. But there's something about the creativity of all that that it's very satisfying to me and very relaxing and very, I don't know how to explain it. And when you see the end product, when you finish the scene and it's working well and you've taken all the things that weren't working out and all of a sudden the director's intention was coming through, the actor's intention was coming through, the story intention was coming through, it's very gratifying it really is.

And in terms of the craft role, you're the last person, the last creative person before it goes out to the audience really, of major importance. And so what the audience is watching is what you, the editor, working with the directors has finally decided this is the film. And there's something very nice about that being the final creative collaborator to help achieve that goal. As technology has changed over the course of your career, has that changed your process? You know, actually not. I did use to cut on film with a blade splicer and tape to cut the whole of the shots together. It seems so primitive now, the way in which we used to edit. And I learned that way because I started to learn in the late 60s or early 70s. But when we switched over to electronic editing, I found it pretty seamless for me. I'm not a big computer person, so it took me a couple of months to learn the computer software and so forth that makes the editing process work.

But once I got the hang of it, it was actually faster and easier, and I had time to try more things. And because I wasn't grappling with tape splices and broken sprocket holes and things like that, it actually enhanced the creativity for me, I think. So I think the advance in technology, in some ways it's like you look at many films now and you look back at a film may 30 years ago, and you can feel that there's a difference. And I think that has a lot to do with the digital technology in many areas. I mean, not just in editing, but in special effects. Or even in cinematography, you see how it has really changed the process. Even in directing, the ability for director to see a playback immediately of a shot that's just done right there, and then correct the actors or correct the cameraman and make changes right there. It enhances their creativity too, because they're not seeing it a day later after it's come out of the laboratory, you know, they're seeing it immediately just because there's a video monitor.

So I mean, all that advance in technology, I just think makes the art better. That's my opinion. I mean, there are people who romanticize the old days of cutting on film, but I'm not one of them. How can the art and style of editing change certain stories? Oh, you know, very much so. First of all, you know, the script is like a blueprint. And then the daily's are like raw material. They're not finished works in and of themselves. And if there's problems in the script, when you're in the cutting room, you can start to correct some of those things and make the story better. If an editor is really attuned to acting, they can see that, oh, in this particular scene, this actor is really much better than this one. And so I'm going to cut it just a little bit more towards this actor who's giving a better performance. And then it makes the scene a little more dramatic.

In fact, as an editor, I feel like editors should study acting because if they can notice the nuances of gesture and facial expression, then they can look at the takes a little more judiciously and really select what's best about that. So, you know, and in documentary, it's all in the editing. Everything is so raw. I mean, if you watch some of the raw footage of Vietnam, it's like some of the sequences where they were shooting, you know, in a battle area. There's a lot of dull stuff where the cameraman was hiding behind a tree and, you know, following some troops, but nothing was happening. There's some distant shooting. But, you know, and then every once in a while, there'll be a little scuffle, a little skirmish. And, you know, when you pull out all the dull stuff and figure out a way to put all the dynamic stuff together, it suddenly pops. And you can make the audience feel like they're really there, by the way, in which you cut it. The very prologue of Vietnam, the very first sequence, it's just a series of images of soldiers fighting in the field, and they are being attacked pretty heavily.

But the editor, Trisha Reddy, I didn't cut that opening, but she did. She's a great editor. But these wonderful little moments of fear and reaction that she captured from the men, and it's cut quickly. So, you cut a series of them very fast. And, you jump. I mean, you jump along with the soldiers, because of the way in which it's cut. So, it's definitely the editing always, you know, is going to bring much more life and drama to that piece than the original script or the original raw materials, for sure. When's the time that you felt editing has helped tell the story in a more impactful way? Oh, goodness gracious. It's a win. Well, for example, to go back to the Civil War, which was, you know, the second film I worked on with Ken. You know, Gettysburg is an important pivot in the war.

And I think the way in which it was both written, and then the way in which Ken and I cut it. And we had to rely on paintings, which is a difficult thing to do. There are some very famous Gettysburg paintings. There's the Gettysburg diorama that is preserved at the park now. And we went there and shot, and shot a lot of close-ups of different actions from the battle. And I think the combination of the voices that related a part of the battle, with the strong narrative that Jeff wrote, but in conjunction with the battle sound effects, and then the quick cutting of even the painting images. It brought the battle to life in an incredibly interesting way. And Ken and I were both thinking, you know, it's so hard to make paintings work. We were really scared. We thought we're not going to be able to do the battle of Gettysburg really well. But I think by the great way in which his eye works to pull apart an image, so that you've got this big wide thing, but he zeroes in on this close-up, and zeroes in on that close-up, zeroes in on the horse bucking, and zeroes in on this, or pans, and does his moves.

The combination of that and the way in which it's cut, it just, it worked like gangbusters, and it was, but if you looked at the raw paintings, you'd probably get bored, but you looked at the editing, edited, and you suddenly felt like I'm in the battle of Gettysburg, and I'm experiencing what those guys were experiencing. What are some things that stand out for you in your career as an editor when you look back? Oh my goodness. That's a tough one. Again, to go back to the beginning, the opening of the Statue of Liberty, which was the first film I worked on with Ken, it's this perfect little opening to the film. It starts with the Jefferson quote, it goes to narration with immigrants coming over, there's a Paul Simon song on it, and it just is this beautiful prologue that sets off what the Statue was all about.

And by opening with the Jefferson quote about Liberty, he establishes the theme, which is what Bartoldy was thinking when he created the Statue was a gift for America, and what he thought America was really all about. It was actually the very first thing I ever worked with Ken on with that, and we were so attuned to the images and the music and the way in which it was all woven together. I still feel like that's one of the best openings that I had ever worked on. I think on Vietnam, there's a lot of sections I'm very, very proud of, but there's a sequence where the famous photograph of the little girl who was napombed by accident. That's a sequence that I'm particularly proud of the way in which it was put together, because we had the photographs that the photographer had taken, and we had footage, because the incident was actually filmed by Newsreel Cameron, and so I could intercut between the photographs and the Newsreel footage.

And the photographer basically told the story, again, where Jeff Warder-Screenwriter decided, you don't need my words, just let Nick the photographer tell it. Again, I'm incredibly proud of that sequence, and I think it's very powerful, because again, that was a turning point in the war where that photograph went all across the world, and at that point in the early 70s, it was worldwide, everybody just said, enough, we can't do this anymore. Look at what you're doing to these children. So, again, it's nice when you can create the drama, bring the drama of that event to life, and show people how much of a turning point it was. You're shaping how people see these stories. Does it have a personal significance to you that stays with you after it's done?

Oh, definitely, absolutely. I mean, I am so proud of the work I've done with Ken, because it combined for me the two things I love the most, which is film and history. I mean, it couldn't have been a more perfect job. I mean, my father was a history nut, and I grew up in a household where I was hearing stories about history constantly. He and my mother were Roosevelt Democrats, and Franklin Eleanor could do no wrong, and I heard all about them. We would sit down and watch documentaries together. I was born in 51, so I missed the war. The BBC did a series called the World of War, and my father said, let's watch this together, because I want you to see what your mother and I had lived through in the 40s. And it was a great experience to do that with him. And I feel the same way. It's like, I think Ken's work and the historical work that we have done on film, we get such great feedback from people who have those same kind of experiences where they watch them with their kids. The baseball series, for example, it's like there's so many stories of fathers and mothers watching the series with their sons and daughters year after year. I mean, it becomes a family ritual in a way.

And Ken and I feel like the more the American public knows about the history, the better informed they are about what's happening in the future, what's happening now. So it's very gratifying that the films are seen so widely. They're used in schools over and over again in history classes. And we get letters from the kids all the time about what they've learned and what struck them. So the body of work that he has created and my collaboration with him has been a very, very gratifying experience for me. I mean, I couldn't be happier with my career. And for yourself as an editor, what has been your goal in being involved with these projects? I think it's just a commitment to when you find a filmmaker who's committed to a certain subject and is so passionate about wanting to present it to an audience. And if I feel that from the filmmaker, then I want to help them. I want to help them achieve that goal.

I've never felt myself capable of directing or creating a film from scratch on my own. I just don't quite have the personality or the passion to be able to do that. But to help someone else do it, it's incredible fun. You know, when you get to see the filmmaker achieve that goal, and it's often not for them. It's like if I go back to an early film idea called No Maps on My Taps, about three black tap dancers who were getting old, the art of tap dancing was dying. This was in the early 80s. And the filmmaker, George and Aaron Berg, he was so in love with jazz tap, he wanted to make a film that might help preserve the art and maybe help revive the art. And I was so taken with his passion for this project, and I love dance anyway. And then when I saw some of the footage with the dancers and they were amazing, I thought, yeah, I want to do this with you.

I'm as committed as you are now. So let's do this and tell the story of these three guys and see if we can't get people interested in tap again. And it actually had that effect. I mean, there still is a revival of jazz tap dancing going on ever since George released that film in the early 80s. You know, a lot of tap dancers who were working now will say, I watch No Maps on My Taps and it inspired me. So when your work, you know, does that, it's just sort of great feeling. Great feeling. You have for many years brought the human experience to these films and projects. How important is it to tell these stories? Oh, it's hugely important, I think. What Ken does that I love is, and he describes it, he calls it emotional archaeology. It's like if you want people to learn history, make them feel it. So it's not just tell the facts and figures, but it's explore the underlying emotions of what was happening at the time with the individual characters, with the events.

And if you can bring the feeling out, then it really hits an audience. And so that, you know, the experience of FDR having polio, I think you really feel that in the Roosevelt series. I mean, there are tons of moments in Vietnam that you're going to feel like gangbusters because you feel like you're in the Battle of I Drang, or you feel like you're on the street photographing the girl who got hit by Napalm. So you're in the moment when that Vietnamese police officer shot the man in the street. It's all of those moments just come alive and hit you in the gut and hit you in the heart. And when you affect the audience emotionally and bring history alive like that, then it means more. And people think about it more. They remember it more. And it becomes more a part of their consciousness. And I think they carry that with them into events that are happening now and what's going on in the world now. So I think it's vital to be telling these stories. Is there a danger or ever a concern when you worry about the emotions that you're encouraging people to maybe feel while they're watching something? How do you think of that as an editor?

There's actually a bit of a delicate balance, especially when you're dealing with a war film. There's so much blood and gore in this series. And luckily we had two female co-producers. Most of the males who were cutting or myself and Ken would be more inclined to include a little more gore, little more blood and guts. And often at screenings it would be Lynn and Sarah who would be saying, let's pull it back a little bit. You've got three horrible shots in a row of someone getting horribly maimed. Let's just make it two. And they would start to temper it. And the feeling was is that it was overkill. We're going to turn the audience off because we're asking them to watch too much blood and gore. It's less is more. And I think that it was a very wise decision to constantly try to balance it and balance it more in the direction of less rather than more.

Leave a little more to the imagination. There was enough there that you could see and feel and it hurt that you didn't have to go overboard and just really rub it in people's noses. Again, in terms of editing, it's a delicate balance. But I was very, you know, Lynn and Sarah were incredibly helpful in that regard. And I think it just is a female perspective of, you know, I get it in the first shot. Thank you very much. I don't need to see anymore. Sounds like an argument for some diversity in the film and television industry. Absolutely. Absolutely. Tara. Yeah. What's significant about telling these stories on public television? Oh, okay. First of all, you know, can is so and myself unbelievably grateful to PBS for supporting these projects all these years. You guys give us total freedom. It's like carte blanche. It's you don't you don't fight us on subject matter. You don't you don't fight us on editorial content. You don't you don't have commercials that breaks up, you know, the intensity of the storyline.

And the support has been just incredible. And the fact that not only do are they broadcast to a wide audience all across the country. Millions of people get to see these. But then they have this wonderful educational outreach program that's attached to every one of our projects. And so they develop teaching materials that go out to schools so that the schools can then use segments from the films as part of the history classes that are done in schools. And so they get used. It's not just a one time viewing, but there's an intention that it lives on as a real educational tool. And if that's one of the missions of PBS to be an educational television station, that's perfect. And we're so happy to be a part of that, honestly. You know, in the early 90s, I co-produced the film on Elizabeth Katie Stanton and Susan B. Anthony with Ken called not for yourselves alone. And I we still get letters from, you know, junior high school girls writing to us and saying,

I didn't know women couldn't vote back then. You know, I didn't know that Susan B. Anthony was trying to get equal pay for equal work in 1850. You know, so when you get those responses from, you know, kids who are in school now, it's wonderful. In many ways, it's more reason why we make the films than the broadcast itself, you know, that they live on as an educational tool. I have one other question if that's okay. As an editor, you spend all this time with other people's stories and looking back at history, people's stories now, people's stories in the past. What has that taught you about yourself and about being a human being? Oh my God, it's, I mean, I think it's just made me about a human being. I mean, to be able to really study the ins and outs of these people's personalities, the complexity of these historical decisions and the fraught politics and so many periods of our history.

It's a struggle. It's hard. It's not easy. It makes you appreciate the bravery and courage of these people to want to continue to go on often in the face of, you know, terrible odds. For Lincoln to had been able to figure out how to pull that divided country together in a certain way. To watch FDR, you know, lead the country through the Depression and World War II while he was crippled from here down and hiding that at the same time because he didn't think people would have faith in him if they thought he was disabled as he really was. It's time and again you get inspired by the story of these great American men and women who really have helped to develop and create the democracy that we have and the kind of country that we have. It's incredibly inspiring.

And I think it's made me a better human being across the board. I'm much more compassionate. I'm much more empathetic. I'm much more willing to look at the gray areas of things and not immediately go to the wider block of any issue to want to see what the other side's point of view is to figure out a compromise. I think all those things history can teach you. And so, yeah, it's been a great journey in that regard. I do feel like it's made me a better person. It was so nice to talk with you about editing and your process and your career. Thank you so much for being here today. It's my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me. All right. Sometimes they can.