Jason Stringer

I have had a few emails about the news that Hair Dye has been drastically cut, so I will further clarify reasons why in this post. First, after leaving my previous post with a bit of a cliff-hanger as to whether or not I would alter Anniversary plans with my wife to complete the editing while Drum was in town; I can confirm things were arranged absolutely without hassle. I am still married. In FACT, it was Kerry who suggested it go ahead before I could even flag the request. What a sweetheart she is!

The editing went extremelly well. Both Drum and I are completely wrapped with the result.

OK, on to the brutal re-cut-

I don’t want to give too much away about the story for those who were not involved and looking forward to seeing it. Basically, the bottom line is, the opening scenes were not relevant when placed against the backdrop of the entire story. They stuck out like a pointless sore thumb. The film spent 15 minutes carefully cradling these characters into a story which, by the end of the film, is supposed to be confusing and have the viewer asking questions about which scenes are ‘reality’ and which are not. They didn’t suit the pivotal point of the whole film and, unfortunately, the only way to salvage the picture was to do away with them.

Now, when I say they didn’t work on many levels such as camera work, framing, lighting, performance, editing – whatever – I am talking about those scenes being compared to the rest of the film. I was able to edit them to a tea and stick strictly to the screenplay, exactly as I was supposed to. If you were watching a scene BY ITSELF; it is fine. You’d say, “Cool scene… That worked.” It’s not until you see it amongst the rest of the film that you realise it completely distracts from the viewing experience you are trying to create.

As a bit of a spoiler, here’s how it goes down:

The story is about a hairdresser who creates her own organic hair dye and sells it to customers. She has reoccurring nightmares and insomnia which is starting to have effects on her mental state, so she is seeing a psychiatrist to treat this. Through-out the film, the hairdresser would wake-up at different stages, and we’d have glimpses of her nightmares and scattered thoughts, causing intrigue in the viewer as to what is occurring when. The psychiatrist is trying to cure her and she begins to question the reality of it all.

So, the original screenplay (and subsequent footage we shot) spent much time introducing the hairdresser and her surroundings and characters she interacts with before revealing the psychiatrist. This made the opening feel unnecessarily drawn out and gave the appearance that we tried to cram a freaky ending into the final act.

It’s a short film. It should only really BE ONE act. So, we do away with the ENTIRE bullshit opening which is a waste of time, and launch straight into the psychiatry discussions. During these discussions, the hairdresser reveals everything the viewer needs to be told about her addiction to coffee, lack of sleep and weird thoughts. Now we DON’T see her with others, which helps create a claustrophobic feeling, and the viewer definitely questions which moments are really occurring, which are in her mind and which are her dreams – which is the aesthetic we wanted to generate from the beginning.

I definitely believe the film is much better off the way it is cut now. We are well on our way to signing this off on this baby and sealing it ‘in the can’.

I can’t wait to re-cut our other short, Living With Benjamin, with the same degree of brute. Brute… That’s a weird word.