An Epic Process of Discovery
Editing a social issue documentary requires time, flexibility and clarity of mind.
Much of the narrative structure was unearthed  during arduous sessions of trial and error.

A graceful alchemy informed the work at a certain juncture: after we had sifted, reviewed, hacked, trimmed, deleted- undeleted, massaged entire sections.
Something just broke through, the film became its own entity with a voice.

My small production team and I gathered a total of 60 hours of footage over the course of a year, in rural and urban locations across Canada, and in parts of the United States. Everything was then transcribed, word for word – otherwise I would have drowned in an ocean of language. The first step was to make sense of the talking and form a narrative argument.  The focus didn’t alter much: it evolved as reality unfolded. There were many surprises that would influence the structure of the film, like Maude’s appointment to the United Nations as Senior Advisor on Water to the 63rd President of the General Assembly,  and the Site 41 victory. It was glaringly obvious that Water On The Table was an epic undertaking and  I was worried about cluttering the story with too much information, it would need to breathe … and flow, and add something different to the conversation, stand apart from  the other feature films on the water crisis.  The editing process would need to meld three encompassing elements to create a cohesive whole: an intimate lens on Maude and her water-warrior story; water as a cinematic thread to elevate the talk lines; effective integration of Maude’s critics, to present a strongly opposing world view.

I conducted just one interview with Maude, at the very end of the year-long production schedule. I fed her the main arguments so that the film would have a call and response debate structure. And there were 2 versions to execute, a broadcast hour and a 79 minute feature length for theatrical release.
Our work was cut out for us.

I asked Jeremiah Munce, my friend and the editor of WATER ON THE TABLE, to reflect on the 6-month editing process we engaged in from July through to December 2009. Below are his thoughtful offerings. I chose Jer because he understands the breadth of the feature length format, and he instinctively understands flow.

~ Liz Marshall
Toronto. July 28th, 2010

J.L.Munce on the editing of WATER ON THE TABLE:

From the beginning, Liz talked about flow…

After perusing the footage on my own for close to a month, Liz joined me up at my northern editing suite on Lake Waseosa, just north of Huntsville.  On her first evening up there, we canoed to the other end of the small spring-fed lake to visit a friend of the family for a meal and a campfire.  Canoeing home late that night, we both silently meditated on what was to come in our process.  The moon had not risen, and the stars were largely hidden behind clouds.  The way forward was into subtle shades of grey and blue-black.  Sky, forest and water were barely discernible from each other.  It helped that I knew the route intimately and could tell which bays we were in by the subtle rolling lines of the horizon.  For the most part, we were forced to trust our intuition and take each stroke of the paddle with a calm, focused presence of mind.

The experience that night reflected what the process of editing the documentary would be.  We had a clear idea of where we wanted to arrive, and there was no choice but to keep moving towards it in the darkness.  There was no choice but to trust each other and accept where we were at all points along the way.  We continued to touch in with each other about glimpses of details and aspects on the gently shifting shore, giving perspective to each other, orienting each other in whatever ways we could.

The editing of Water on the Table was a constant navigation of delicate balance between the elements: 1.) painterly, cinematic footage of water in the world, 2.) interviews with Maude or her opponents, and 3.) verité footage following Maude in her on the ground battles.  What I was concerned about was the problem of integrating the different elements and creating an experience for the audience that was not too much work in putting it all together.  Heady material can easily become distancing for the viewers, and the precious information, truths, and ideas within the film do not land with the audience.

An early breakthrough, and the factor that I feel makes the film unique and effective, was the decision to construct the flow of the film as a series of dialogues or debates.  When information is being delivered by a collection of talking heads with many different faces and voices chiming in on a given subject, it is easy to be overwhelmed.  Liz’s lines of questioning were so well thought-out that we were able to construct a head-to-head conversation with each one of the pro-market advocates.  The flow of subject and theme would arise naturally out of each interviewee’s natural leanings and specificity of focus.  It is so much more engaging to follow a heated conversation than a constructed barrage of information.

This approach made more and more sense as it was apparent that the film would be grounded with Maude as the main character.  Maude became our envoy, our emissary, our guide.  I think this approach also helped to create powerful links in the conceptual framework required to understand the issues.

Once our structure was proven to be solid in our initial screenings together, the other elements began to fall into place, and the flow began to be achieved with all the necessary, subsequent difficult decisions.  The film began to flow around the formal elements we had put in place, like water around the rocks and bends of a riverbed.

Within any eco-system, it is important to see the interconnectedness of all elements.  The struggle to integrate practical lessons within the many tributaries of a flowing story was a satisfying experience.  A good film becomes like a living system, every decision to alter one part carries implications and ramifications for the other parts, and for the whole.

Liz and I learned immensely from each other, and from the process itself, but of course we learned most of all from Maude.  I was constantly struck by what an opportunity it to have such an intimate window on her passion and intellect as a Water Warrior and to watch such a seasoned activist forge her path, like a subterranean stream bursting through the surface of the earth.

One Response

1. Jaimie Clements says:

   November 15, 2010 at 12:00 pm

   Thank you for taking the time to reflect on your editing experience. It is especially helpful to myself as I am about to start the editing process on my first documentary that incorporates several different people and ideas. Thank you for the advice on finding the interconnectedness!

   Reply