SPECIAL EMMY AWARDS SECTION
Getting Their Wings
MPEG Winners at the 59th Primetime Creative Emmy Awards
by Laura Almo photos by Craig T. Mathew/Mathew Imaging
 Sam Pollard Outstanding Editing for Nonfiction Programming When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts |
Sam Pollard
Outstanding Editing for Nonfiction
Sam Pollard began editing narrative and documentary films in the 1970s. It turns out he was able to use footage from the first film he edited, Black Indians in New Orleans, for When the Levees Broke, his most recent work with director Spike Lee.
Editors Guild Magazine: Why do you think When the Levees Broke won an Emmy?
Sam Pollard: I think it won because it was a timely, historically relevant film. I think Spike was able to give a face to the people that we just saw quite briefly on the news about Hurricane Katrina. Also, in this film, people had the chance to really open up and talk about what they had to confront during this horrific tragedy in American history.
EGM: What were some of the challenges of this project?
SP: I think the biggest challenge was the tremendous amount
of material that we had to go through in such a short amount of time. We had
about 10 months to get this whole project together. The other two editors,
Nancy Novack and Geeta Gandbhir, and I had to sort through
300 hours of interviews that Spike had shot. There were a hundred interviews.
We also had to deal with almost 200 hours of archival footage, so it was a daunting task. But we started out with a pretty organized game plan, so it enabled us to really plow through that material. I always say that part of the trick of editing documentaries is being organized.
EGM: What was your game plan?
SP: Spike and I knew that the structure of the film would follow the arc of the actual events. We knew that meant going through all of the interviews and transcripts before we started in the editing room. I was screening footage between October and January before we brought assistants on to log and digitize, so I really had a strong sense of what the material was all about.
EGM: How did you go about organizing the material?
SP: Originally we digitized the interviews just by person, but then we broke down these interviews so people would talk about specific events. When I got into the editing process, I could immediately go to a bin that talked about the “day of the storm,” “two days after the storm,” “being in the Super Dome,” etc. I had my assistants organize all this material according to those subject headings, which made things go much, much faster.
EGM: Could you talk about your relationship with Spike Lee?
SP: We’ve been working together almost 20 years. In the case of Spike and myself, it’s always been very professional. What I respect and admire about him as a director is that he has a very strong sense of vision and a very strong sense of what he wants to hear and what he wants to see. So when we work together, he is able to articulate to me a sense of what he likes and what he wants. He leaves it to me to take his ideas and thoughts and to give them shape and form. This is a guy who can direct me whether he’s next door in the next room or 20,000 miles away. He’s that strong a director in terms of his vision.
EGM: How did you get your start in editing?
SP: I was a young college student in 1971 at Baruch College in New York. I was going to be a businessman and I went to see a counselor and I told her I was looking for something to do after school because I was not happy with my classes. She told me about a television and film workshop at WNET Channel 13 in New York. They had a one-year program that was two nights a week. I got into this workshop and the thing that I was attracted to most of all was the editing; I really enjoyed the whole process. At the end of the year, I got a job working as an apprentice editor on a low-budget feature film. The editor, Victor Kanefsky, took me on as an apprentice and then as his assistant. He edited lots of documentaries and he was my mentor.
EGM: You also teach editing at NYU.
SP: I feel it is part of my responsibility to take the knowledge that I’ve learned over the past 30 years and pass it on to the students––and hope they come up a new generation of not only editors, but filmmakers.
EGM: How have you evolved as an editor?
SP: When I was a young editor working on Three-Two-One Contact, all I was concerned about was making sure all my cuts looked pristine. I’d sacrifice the content for a good cut. If there was a shadow or a scene that had some kind of jiggly camera or wasn’t going to make my cut look good, I wouldn’t use it. One thing I learned from watching an older editor work next door is that some of the scenes with the most ragged cuts were much more powerful. It’s not just about making cuts look good, it’s about making sure that the content comes through.
I’m a strong believer in the notion of craft and I’m also a really strong student of editing, so I continue to study everybody’s cuts. I really admire the idea of learning the craft inside out.
That’s why I love to edit so much. It’s always on my mind.
[ return to top ]
Bill Smith and Yuri Reese
Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Comedy or Drama Series
 Bill Smith and Yuri Reese Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Comedy or Drama Series (One-Hour) CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, "Living Doll" |
Re-recording mixers are responsible for balancing the disparate sound elements. A musician-turned-mixer with a strong film background, Bill Smith, along with Yuri Reese, has a keen sense of how to mix a show in order to create the desired atmosphere and mood.
Editors Guild Magazine: Why do you think you won an Emmy for CSI: Crime Scene Investigation?
Bill Smith: Well, that’s a difficult question. I can start by saying that CSI is a great show to work on for sound people because the producers really care about the sound. Usually, we’re sending the Emmys blockbuster shows with accidents and explosions. Last season, we didn’t have a blockbuster show so we submitted a really soft show. It’s kind of surprising that we won actually.
EGM: What was special about this particular episode?
BS: Ken Fink directed this episode and it has a lot of texture and moodiness. His shows are very moody, dark and understated. Ken likes to go with music more than effects so when we mix a Ken Fink show, we have to decide if we want to play any effects at all or do we just play it totally silent. This is part of the creative decision that we make as mixers.
EGM: Can you give an example of the kinds of decisions you make?
BS: We start with the faders up and make decisions based on what’s going on in the scene, what the music’s telling you and what the dialogue’s telling you. Maybe the cue comes in too early or maybe we want it to go on a little longer. Or, if they’re underground, do we want to hear a rumble? Do we want it totally deathly silent? The editors always cut everything for the show, but a lot of times it’s when you hear the music and everything together that you realize, “This is going to be cooler if we just take everything out.”
EGM: What were some of the challenges of this particular episode?
BS: The episode is called “Living Doll,” and it was the last show of the season. There were three-to-four shows where a serial killer builds little miniatures of a crime scene. At the scene, they find a miniature there and it’s an exact image of the actual crime scene with the dead person there and all.
In this particular mix, we needed to create a creepy mood and the effects had to work well––if not be almost invisible over the music track. The collaboration on the mix stage was challenging and rewarding because sound design elements would morph in and out of music in some of the surreal scenes. We use the 5.1 format whenever we go ‘inside’ the killer’s head to add confusion and tension. This episode was an opportunity to think outside the box a bit and break away from the “see it, hear it” style of editorial and mix. We had fun with it.
EGM: What about your partner, Yuri Reese?
Yuri does the music and dialogue and I do the sound effects. It’s great working with Yuri because he has a quick grasp of the overall style of a mix and he can mix in a music track really quickly; once he’s heard it, he knows exactly where he’s going with it.
EGM: What are some of the things that make it especially interesting and enjoyable to work on this show?
BS: Everybody cares about this show––from the music department to the people who cut it and color time it. Everything comes together and it’s something you can be really proud of when you’re done.
EGM: How did you get involved in mixing?
BS: I started out as a musician, like a lot of people in this business. I made records in the 1980s and then a friend of mine, who is actually in my band, opened up a post-production facility and I went into post-production in about 1991. I started with Roger Corman films, doing movie trailers and things like that.
EGM: How do you feel about winning the Emmy?
BS: I feel great about it. I didn’t think it would matter as much as it does, but we’ve been trying all these years. When we took on CSI in Season Two, we promised the producers an Emmy––and we finally got one for them.
A few feature mixers have said to me, “I’m sorry that you have so little time in television; you don’t have the time to get it right.” While I understand their position, when you have an extremely dedicated crew of professionals behind you, you can get it right. We’re very proud of this Emmy and we’ve worked very hard to get it. Also, I’d like to thank the people from Ascent Media for their ongoing support and the top-notch technical staff at Todd AO in Burbank.
[ return to top ]
Catherine Speakman and William Dotson
Outstanding Sound Editing for a Series
 Catherine Speakman and William Dotson Outstanding Sound Editing for a Series 24, "10:00-11:00 p.m." |
Imagine the deafening noise of a cataclysmic explosion. Then you’ve tapped into the work of Catherine Speakman and William Dotson. These sound editors’ job is to create the sounds that will make you think and feel you are right there in the thick of whatever is on the screen.
Editors Guild Magazine: Why do you think you won the Emmy for 24?
Catherine Speakman: I think it was because of John Cassar, our favorite director. He never fails to give us a good gunfight or a good explosion so we can have a lot to work with. Also, coming from features for so many years of our career, we never quite lost that attitude––that it has to be as good as a feature. We didn’t have to take too many steps forward to achieve what the audience is expecting to hear these days.
EGM: Describe what you do as sound editors?
CS: We’re trying to create an illusion that you’re in an environment without you thinking otherwise. We want you to believe that you are standing on a freeway overpass, or wherever the scene wants you to be. A good sound person can make you believe it.
EGM: What was special about this show?
CS: Well, a nuclear bomb going off in Los Angeles is a little special. 24 has always been on the cutting edge. The producers are wonderful. They’re not afraid to take a chance that other people might be afraid of taking.
EGM: What kind of sound design did you build for this episode?
William Dotson: Collectively, we came up with the low frequency pulse. We were thinking in terms of an Electromagnetic pulse––much more low frequency than high frequency for the explosion. It’s just a guestimate, because I’ve never heard a nuclear explosion. You need to take some creative license because there’s got to be some sound. Some people said there wouldn’t be any sound, but it’s television so it’s got to be exciting. We tried to make it different than a conventional explosive sound. Those first few shots of the bomb going off were a great opportunity to have some fun with sound.
EGM: Were there any particular challenges in doing this episode?
WD: In general, 24 is a huge challenge and this episode was gigantic. The Foley, sound effects and sound design are all huge––and trying to get a show done in a week’s turnaround is an immense challenge. It’s basically 44 minutes of an action movie that you would see in the movie theatre, only it was done in one week.
EGM: How did you get into sound editing?
CS: My mother was a sound editor before me. I used to go home and build sounds when I was 11. I fell in love with sound on the film Love at First Bite. We were recording my roller skates across the kitchen counter for some of the coffin rolls, and I fell in love with sound at that minute. It just opens up a whole unique world for a child. From that age forward, I’ve always thought of life in terms of sound––which is kind of weird but true.
WD: I was going to school to become a civil engineer and then, one summer, I heard that this sound house needed a driver. I took that job for the summer and never left. I started at the bottom––but fortunately it was at Soundelux, the best company in Hollywood. I was very lucky!
EGM: Has the technology changed the way you do your job now?
WD: The digital age makes it much easier to listen to all of your tracks at once instead of listening on a Moviola to one-track single stripe. I can now listen to 180 tracks at once, which is easier. Back in the day, you weren’t really sure how everything was going to come together in the big picture because there was no ability to listen to all the sounds at once. Now we have the ability, before we end up on the mix stage, to listen to how everything is going to play together.
CS: We’ve suffered through many incarnations of sound technology since film. We’ve gone through tape to digital to digital systems and now I think we’ve settled nicely into a ProTools format, which is cool for everybody.
EGM: What is your favorite part of working on 24?
CS: It’s the fans and the people with whom we work. The producers are some of the finest people we’ve ever worked with. They’re always there; they always want to go the extra mile. Their commitment to excellence is the highest I’ve seen, and I applaud them. I like that in them––because I like that in us.
[ return to top ]
John Pritchett
Outstanding Technical Direction for a Miniseries, Movie or a Special
 John Pritchett Outstanding Technical Direction for a Miniseries, Movie or a Special American Idol, "Idol Gives Back" |
It has been said that John Pritchett wrote the book on technical directing. With 25 years of experience, this seasoned veteran has done technical direction on serial comedies, game shows, award shows and his personal favorite, live music shows.
Editors Guild Magazine: Why do you think you won an Emmy for American Idol, “Idol Gives Back?”
John Pritchett: I think it was a highly popular show. American Idol has been very popular but I don’t know how well it’s received in the professional world, as it’s another reality show. But I think “Idol Gives Back” was well received in the professional world, and I believe that has a lot to do with why we won. We also put on a good show. There was a lot of entertainment and it was there to serve a purpose.
EGM: What was the purpose?
JP: It was the charity event. The purpose was to raise money for people in dire need in the United States and Africa, specifically for food. After all was said and done, they raised about $73 million.
EGM: What made it different from the regular American Idol?
JP: It was a different type of show with a different feeling; it had a political overtone. There were a lot of performances, a lot of stars and a lot of entertainment––not just the American Idol kids performing, which they did as well.
EGM: Describe what you do as a Technical Director.
JP: We’re like live editors; we’re cutting the live cameras. It’s also doing all the screen feeds––putting all the footage, backgrounds, videotape and live cameras in the screens.
EGM: There’s a lot going on at the same time.
JP: Yes, there’s a lot of multi-tasking going on. There’s a lot of interruptions: listening to the director, listening to the talent on stage, listening to the producers talk behind you, trying to keep it all straight and doing the best job that you can for the show.
EGM: What special skills does this require?
JP: You have to be able to focus on multiple things at once. You have to be able to prioritize immediately what you need to be listening to and what you can put on the back burner, whether you hear it or not. I think you have to be able to switch from one task to another at the drop of a pen.
EGM: And how tough is it to keep it all straight?
JP: You can either do it or you can’t.
EGM: What were some of the challenges of technical directing this episode of American Idol?
JP: This was a live, two-hour show from two locations. We had 22 cameras––13 in the studio at CBS and nine at Disney Hall in downtown LA. We were taking a feed from Disney Hall and putting it into our screen at CBS and we were switching a lot of things all the time, so it was challenging.
EGM: Was there ever a time where you were at both places live?
JP: Yes, when Ryan Seacrest was at CBS and Ellen DeGeneres was at Disney Hall. They were talking to each other and it was projected on the screen. There was another technical director at Disney Hall and he and I would talk a lot to make sure that we were covered for any scenario.
EGM: How do you work with the director?
JP: By keeping the director informed and showing him cameras he might think about using, say for audience cutaways. Also, being able to communicate and having a good relationship with the director helps the show.
EGM: How did you get started in this business?
JP: I started when I was 15 in Palm Springs. I had been in a car accident and broke my leg. I was laid up for the summer and a friend who worked at a TV station asked me to come down and hang out because I had nothing to do. I watched and learned, and then a couple of months later I started doing the audio on the local news in Palm Springs.
EGM: Where did you go from there?
JP: I started learning videotape and then I got interested in the technical directing part. I went to Las Vegas and I started directing local news there. Twenty years ago, I moved to LA and started technical directing and directing for the Fashion Channel.
EGM: What’s next for you?
JP: I’m staying in the television industry! I enjoy technical directing. I also like directing, because you get to step away from being so technical and be more creative.
[ return to top ]