: Kylee Peña's Blog
Yeah, so, NAB, am I right?
Alright, look. This is my first year seeing NAB from the other side in many ways. I'm very much an observer. I will tweet a lot of strange pictures and probably a lot of nonsensical thoughts over the next week, but I felt like I should at least attempt to contribute something worthwhile during this thing.
There's a deluge of coverage from the show floor. People who have been around a lot longer and actually have strong opinions will be covering everything anyone could possibly want to know about new products. That's not really my calling anyway.
So I present to you: Deep Thoughts from Vegas.
I call today day negative one. Day 1 has to be Monday and Day Negative Two sounds stupid so today is negative one, tomorrow is zero. Though it seems that stuff starts to get interesting tomorrow, which gives today a sort of Christmas Eve vibe. Soon all the post pros will be nestled snug in their expensive suite king sized beds while thoughts of Resolve 10 dance in their heads. In between the less savory things; it is Vegas after all.
"Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray to Adobe my soul to keep."
Which leads me to today's deep thought: absurdity.
If you take a half step back, this is all just a little bit incredibly absurd. People furiously tweeting, speculation and rumors out the wazoo, press releases practically being tossed out into the streets like ticker tape. It's absurd that I'm writing this on my iPad while crammed in a middle seat between two dudes I don't know while my husband is in another middle seat crammed between two ladies he doesn't know.
It's just barely skating the surface of sanity, this week. The frenzy, the freebies, the things we do to our bodies. And that's perfectly fine. This is what we do for a living. The NAB Show defines the rest of the year for a lot of us.
But come on, I'm right, right? It's all rather lavish. Over the top. Decadent. Absurd.
This isn't a thing that says we're going overboard and need to reign it in, because I think it's pretty much amazing. Because what's not absurd in the least are the relationships forged or renewed at this thing. Friends, contacts, employers, employees. Listening and learning is the take-away, along with the free t-shirts.
If you're here, count yourself lucky. You shined up your comfy shoes, snapped your badge onto a fresh lanyard, and you're heading out into the night to drink with like-minded nerds and talk about 4K. If you aren't here, count yourself lucky too: you aren't crammed into a middle seat.
I'm just saying an ounce of gratitude this week will do your body good.
Also, probably 20 ounces of water before bed each night.
That's my thought. Absurdity and gratitude. I promise some of these may even be funny and not at all preachy.
Last week I found myself in Urban Outfitters for some unknown reason, and started looking through their mostly novelty book collection. Recipes for hemp, something about beards, veganized Betty Crocker, even the classic Tumblr Feminist Ryan Gosling is now a coffee table book. In the piles of hipster literature and cat pictures, I found a book called "Damn Good Advice (for people with talent!)" by George Lois
. The book is, as you'd guess, a list of advice largely aimed at young professionals, arranged with one point per page with a succinct paragraph explaining it.
I glanced through a few pages and landed on one that basically said this: don't forget to honor your mentors when you're successful. Give credit to those that helped you in some way.
I thought, really? People need to be told to do this? Why wouldn't you share your success?
But then I remembered a time when I used to keep my gratefulness to myself. Introverts tend to think a lot of things, and a lot of us in post are introverts by nature. We appreciate what people do for us and would always give them credit for helping us along the way if someone asked, but do we ever tell them? Honestly, all this junk gets way too close to having feelings and emotions, and most of us just aren't down with that kind of stuff.
I've been lucky to have a few mentors along the way so far, but there was one person I saw recently, and I realized I had never told him the impact he had on me. We only worked together a couple of days a long time ago.
In 2006, I accidentally found out that there happened to be a small independent film community in Indianapolis. I say accidentally because I was eavesdropping on a conversation at work. A girl mentioned her dad was an actor, and it snowballed from there until I was walking up the driveway to a stranger's house while people I don't know assembled a dolly outside. The film was an independent feature drama about a pioneer woman who got lost in time, and they were shooting two scenes outside the house that day. I had volunteered to be a production assistant. I'd never been a PA before, so I had no idea what I was getting myself in to with it.
I spent the day doing everything you'd expect a brand new PA to do. Moving stuff, getting people drinks, moving stuff, moving stuff. Around evening, some people had to leave, and the assistant director asked me if I knew how to script supervise. Nope, but I can learn. So he showed me. A couple more people left, so I had to script supervise and do the slates. And it was night, so I had to shine a flashlight on the slate. And then grab my script notes. He worked with me, showing me how to number and letter the takes, what to say, where to hold things. He was incredibly kind and patient for a dude on a film set dealing with a mostly clueless 19 year old, heavy on the positive reinforcement. After we wrapped, I helped wrap cable and we spoke for a while about my career and schooling, and he wished me luck.
Having been on a lot of sets since then, I know that they're usually at least a little tense. I was lucky to have a first experience with an AD that wasn't screamy and stressed out. If my first experience on set had been negative, I'm not sure what would have happened next. But the AD's kindness showed me that there are a lot of good people in film, so I continued to volunteer and pursue more experiences with indies. Over the years, I've been able to work my way through crew jobs and meet dozens and dozens of great people. And of course, this eventually led to me editing a feature myself.
I figured I should probably tell him, right? So I did, via a quick note online. He was happy to hear, and he told me this: please do the same for someone you just met. Which is also great advice, and something I've always aspired to do.
This will undoubtedly get buried under the sea of NAB news about to flood the feeds, but if you're heading off to Vegas or getting your RSS feeds ready to see the latest gear and "game changers", remember the people
. Give credit where it's due. Honor your mentors (or those that were kind to you in some way) when you have any kind of success. Remember that nobody gets there alone. It works out great for everyone. Your mentor is encouraged to keep it up. You get some much needed humbling. And you might even get another dose of good advice from the experience. It's win-win-win, ya'll.
Now everyone hug.
Disclaimer: This has almost nothing to do with anything. It's a stream of consciousness of my brief pilgrimage to B&H in New York City. I'm not really sure because I wrote this sentence before I wrote the thing, but it could very possibly become over the top.
Honking. Wind. Buzz. Orange camouf-what! Oh. I jump sideways to dodge a bike messenger.
camo? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?
I look up from my phone, realizing I probably shouldn't stand right in the middle of the sidewalk while I check my map. Maybe if I were an actual New Yorker. My pink (yes, pink) backpack and I are alone in New York, and we have an agenda. Technically, the agenda is AFI's Directing Workshop for Women. But that's tomorrow. Tonight? Twitter Taco Tweet-up. But today? Today it's me and the city. Checklist item number one? B&H
Yes, B&H. The largest non-chain photo and video equipment store in the US. It's mere blocks from me at this moment. I think, anyway.
The city and I are getting acquainted near 7th Avenue in the Flatiron District. I told the cab driver a random intersection in the neighborhood to make things a bit more interesting for me. I can't remember the exact cross-streets anymore because I ended up walking miles through Manhattan that weekend. I do know I could see the Empire State Building from where I stood, so I figure that's a good place to start. And let me say right now if my geography seems off, it probably is because I'm freezing cold. Just go with it.
I try to avoid looking too much like a tourist since I'm alone. I fail at this at the base of the Empire State Building. You see it in movies forever, but when you're at the base staring up and unable to see the top, you understand what humans are capable of, but in the good way.
I'm only walking for an hour before my face completely freezes. A nor'easter is brewing and it's not letting anyone forget.
As I pick a new direction, I end up passing by Penn Station and the Flatiron building, among a few other things where I say "OH HEY THAT'S THAT THING" and then quickly stick my hands back in my pockets and keep walking in the direction of B&H. I swear I'm downwind of that new electronics smell. It's like a siren call leading me forward in the blustery wind.
As I'm crossing a road I look aside to check for cars (because apparently no one waits for the walk sign in New York) and I see the Freedom Tower. Over the course of the weekend I realize you can see it from almost everywhere even though it's not yet complete. I remember what humans are capable of, but in a bad way.
Finally, like a mirage in the desert, a green awning appears in the distance. A green awning displaying that oh-so-familiar logo. The logo on the massive multitude of magazines that hit my mailbox on a quarterly basis.
B&H Photo Video at 9th Avenue between 33rd and 34th.
Like all the best places in New York, it's in sort of a nondescript looking brick building. I go inside and pass the bag check. A bearded man greets me. Then I'm suddenly inside the world's greatest candy store. I half expect Willy Wonka to somersault down the carpet at me.
The store seems to take advantage of every square inch of space available in the building -- all 70,000 square feet of it across two floors. That's like almost two football fields. (Non-America readers can do the conversion to soccer field for me.) Display cases with audio mixers shine brightly like jewels. An entire aisle of cables hang carefully and conspicuously not tangled. Cameras, lenses, every type of storage media conceivable by man. Anything you could ever want or need or want is in this store.
After I wander the perimeter, checking out some things I was ogling in the magazine recently and trying to remember that most of it won't fit in the single backpack I have, I stand near an employee talking to a curious shopper.
I suppose it's worth noting that B&H is owned and operated by observant Satmar Hasidic Jews with hundreds of Orthodox Jews on staff. To me, a staff of people in traditional Orthodox garb is both welcoming and intimidating and I can't really tell you why. It's like the authority of uniform to another level. But I can tell you that all the salesmen are so completely friendly and knowledgeable, there's no way you'd leave the store without talking to someone, if only to say hello.
Of course, in the few moments I eavesdrop on the sales guy talking to the customer, I realize the guys can talk circles around me because they actually know their s--t and I blank out on any questions I may have ever had. I don't think they want to talk to me about the meaning of life, they have things to sell.
I make my way upstairs and find the stuff that I really like to window shop -- lenses and hard drives. I love a good hard drive. The air in the store is perfectly balanced with equal parts fresh electronics and old New York building. They should bottle it. Eau de Camera.
As I'm walking around, I noticed bowls of also-nondescript candy placed at the end of aisles. It looks like the kind of candy I usually avoid, so I don't try it. Later I kick myself when I bring up the candy to post nerd New Yorkers and find it's phenomenal. If you're going, try the candy. Let me know what you think.
Skipping over the parts where I oooh and aaah over stuff I either can't afford or can't fit in my backpack, I make my way downstairs again and admire the engineering happening above my head. Either taking advantage of the space or simply working with the space they have, the building has been set up with an elaborate conveyer belt system in the ceiling. What seems to happen is that you decide to make a purchase after talking to one of the sales guys, then you go to the maze of cashiers near the exit and get in line. While you do this, your item is sent from storage, into the conveyer belt, and magically flies into the room of cashiers so they can give it to you as you pay and depart.
I'm pretty sure that's what happens. It's thrilling to me. I like conveyer belts. The store is like a living organism that feeds on curiosity and converts it to happy.
Realizing I should get out before I make any bad (good) decisions, I carefully navigate the cashier maze at the exit. With a friendly salutation from the door watching man, I'm back out on the street wondering what just happened.
For a moment I consider going back in for another ride. But instead, my main checklist item fulfilled, I wander back to Penn Station to see what other trouble I can find.
The new electronics smell fades into the heavy subway stank and the gentle whirr of B&H blends into back the cityscape.
Of course, I end up getting stuck in New York two extra days thanks to Nemo (and a day in DC, but in the airport) so I could have spent the whole EVENING people-watching and equipment-ogling at B&H. Next time maybe I won't be traveling so light and I can afford the space for a new lens cloth or twenty foot cable. What cable? I don't even care. I'll find a use for it.
(Saturday morning in Brooklyn after the storm, for good measure. It was kind of cold.)
This blog post is going to skate really close to rant territory. I'd apologize for that, but I'm actually not sorry. You've been warned.
(I did, however, take out all the swearing that would normally accompany this if we talked in person. That's a premium service. Contact me for an estimate.)
For some reason, I've been asked for my advice about getting started in an editing or filmmaking career or how to find indie films to work on more this week than ever before. I'm not sure why it's all happened at once, maybe I'm giving off a vibe. Or scent. Regardless, it's cool. I love sharing my experiences and opinions. Passing on advice that worked for me is a lot of fun and I'll always do it. Mutual curiosity about career stuff is a fun conversation topic.
you've really really
got to stop being lazy and making excuses for not getting what you want. Seriously. It's sad and it makes me sad for you. So sad in fact, that I've created this BEST OF compilation of stupid excuses. It's perhaps a little more brash than my usual fare. Don't mistake this for arrogance. I'm young and stupid too, but I'm still allowed to almost rant. Pseudo-rant. Pretend I made you cookies and you're eating them as you read this.
"I want to shoot/edit/work on some short films but I don't know anyone."
Okay, two options. Do it all yourself, or meet people who share your ambition. Which one sounds easier? (It's not the first one.)
When people ask me how I meet people in film, they're dismayed when they realize that I actually left my home and talked face to face with other human beings. Yes, it's true! Even here in Indiana we have a great filmmaking group called Indiana Filmmakers Network
. They meet once a month, every single month. I always pass along this information to locals that are interested in filmmaking. The general response? Maybe two in ten people actually look into it. Maybe ONE of those two people actually attends and starts and conversation with someone new. Repeat visitors to the group, even less than that. Yes, there are half-people wandering around meetings here. It's grotesque.
There are meet-ups and user groups like this all over the country, why aren't you taking advantage of them?
"I went to a networking event but I didn't meet anyone."
WHY? Networking also isn't a matter of simply showing up. If you go to a meet up with a group of people that know each other, you have to be the one to take initiative because they're all going to be busy catching up with one another. Elbow your way into a conversation, introduce yourself, and be interesting and useful. If you don't get anything out of a networking event, it's nobody's fault but yours.
"I met some people, but they never got in touch with me."
Why didn't YOU get in touch with THEM? You didn't call or email or write or carrier-pigeon them? Why should it be their responsibility to reach out to you? Come on, dude. And once you get in touch, it's also YOUR responsibility to continue to cultivate the relationship by the way. And while I'm on the topic, remember: people are people, not commodities. Treat them as such.
Networking isn't instant gratification, which is maybe the biggest turn off for people. It took me over five years of meeting people and working on their sets before I got to the point where I was even editing. These all started as side projects, purely for enjoyment. And that's how it primarily remains. But I get a lot of really great, professional experience, and I've gotten significant paid work from it too.
"I don't know why I'm not getting any freelance work at all."
(My response: how are you looking for work? Their reply: "Online
These days, it seems so common to rely completely upon electronic communications. Find a listing or company email, send an application or forward a resume, profit. Except the third one doesn't happen that much, does it? How many frustrated hours do people spend on the Internet, sending bits into the ether, hoping someone they don't know comes along and says why YES, this 40 word email is precisely what was missing in my life!
The best work I've gotten has come from knowing people who know people. I'm not saying the Internet isn't useful for job hunting by any means. Or for making initial contact. Or even for maintaining contact. But when someone is frustrated and lacking in work and they haven't done a single thing beyond sending formal emails to HR accounts, I want to slap them with a hand full of glitter.
Besides the networking events and meet ups, you should be doing everything you possibly can to make connections. Call a company directly (unless they say not to -- follow instructions for the love of *%&^). Make contact with individuals and ask for informational interviews or tours. Invite someone to coffee. Send mini muffins. Whatever! It takes up a lot of your time and it's a lot of effort, but the return on your time investment is going to be much higher than sitting in a dark room sending 1's and 0's to already-stuffed-full inboxes.
(But you do have a website, right? Okay, good. Oh wait, it's grammatically correct and stuff too? Okay, just checking.)
"But I'm an introvert, I don't like asking for things."
So am I and neither do I. Bummer. Do it or change careers, man.
"I did work for someone but they never contacted me with more."
Did you do good work for them? If not, then you're screwed. If you did good work, did you stay in touch with them and follow up about more opportunities? If not, do it now. I'll wait. Because you might not be screwed. But ya know, they may just not have any work or money. It shouldn't matter to you, you should be working on other connections. Don't take it personally. Just keep checking, move on, and have another plan.
"I'm too busy to look for work."
This makes no sense. If you're too busy to look for work, how are you not too busy to do
work? This is a time management issue that should be figured out before you take on clients.
The part where this becomes a rant is not the questions I'm being asked. It's the response I get. Physical effort? Feh, I can't deal with that. I'm skilled, people should be knocking down MY door to hire me.
That's not the world we live in. No one owes you anything, especially not if you put in the minimal effort of getting a college degree or doing an online course. I don't have an easy solution. I'm not luckier than you. While there is a big element of being in the right place at the right time, you don't magically find yourself in that right place. Most often, the right place is a consequence of forging a new relationship and working really hard. And not being a poopy person. The time is what you have less control over, so you can pray to the leprechaun in the sky or the holy unicorn for help there.
So stop making stupid excuses and get out there. Yes, put on your shoes. Socks go on first. Good! Here's a cookie. Now go out the door. You might need a coat, it's been pretty cold lately. Go find someone, shake their hand, and talk about stuff. It's flu season, so maybe take this hand sanitizer. Look both ways before you cross the road, call if you need anything. Good luck!
I hate New Year's resolutions. They're the worst
. I think the year flipping from 2012 to 2013 is entirely arbitrary and should have no bearing on what I do with myself, mostly because nearly all resolutions are forgotten by Valentine's Day anyway. However
, it seems as good a time as any to set overall year-long goals and check in on how you're doing, right? But not resolutions. If you call 'em that, you're going to bail and you know it. Plus, you can always add to them throughout the year if you feel the need.
For the last several years, I've set a list of goals at the end of December and evaluated how I did with the previous year. It's sort of a public accountability thing even though no one really holds me to it because really, who would remember? Twelve months on the Internet is basically a century. Still, actually writing things down in a sorta-permanent way makes them slightly more legit....even though I could edit this post and pretend I met all of my goals because I am infallibly amazing. But no, I would never do that.
Or have I already?
I'm sure I've mentioned repeatedly in my blogs how much of a goal-oriented list-checker-offer psychopath I am, so literally writing down words that describe the things I want to fulfill so I can actually check them off a list makes me giddy. If it doesn't make you giddy right now, I recommend doing it anyway. Maybe by 2014, you can share my giddy sickness.
Either way, I think it's important to set and achieve goals as a video editor even when you've reached a point where you feel comfortable with your skills and surroundings -- because things change way too fast to ever be complacent, ya'll.
If you want some motivation in considering your focus for the new year, here are my goals for 2012
, and how I did with them. I thought about including them in this post, but they border on braggy at times if they're outside the context of my personal blog so they can just sit over there. If you're on my page, anything goes without apology. Overall, I did pretty well with the main ones. A couple slipped by. And a couple just became less important to me as the year went on.
And that's one thing I think is most important about goal-setting and ultimately my point. Goals are always in flux, and you can re-evaluate them at any point in the year, not just when the human construct of time dictates a tally mark in the year column.
And a goal is better than a resolution. A goal is something to achieve. A resolution feels like something that is wrong with you that needs to change. It feels like it's set in stone forever and if you don't do it, oh well, trash it. Goals and resolutions can be the same thing, but the word "goal" is much more positive. In my opinion, anyway.
So, 2013? I have some goals. In the interest of practicing what I preach, here are a couple. I expect you, dear Internet, to hold me to this.
1. Read more books.
I have a Kindle and I should use it. I'm also filing "read more scripts" under this category. Reading scripts for films you've seen or will see teaches you a lot, so I'm going to do more of it.
2. Watch more films.
I've always felt like I consumed a lot of media, but compared to others, I kind of don't. I go to the movies a lot, but I have a lot of catching up to do with classic films.
3. Fluency in Avid.
This doesn't really
need to be on this list since I'm continuing to cut Impersonators
and have another film lined up. But part of fluency (to me) is actively pursuing additional training to add to the knowledge I gain from hands on experience (including considering the C word
4. Go outside.
Probably the most difficult goal when you're busy trying to watch more, read me, and learn more stuff. Plus the sun, it burns us, precious. But physical activity is important, unfortunately. Blergh.
There ya go. Four perfectly attainable yet challenging goals. I think it's best to have a good mix of measurable and abstract. And while it's not a bad thing to have goals that are really reaching, I always try to limit those because I know I'd just get overwhelmed and give up before I start. Maybe really-really-hard-to-reach goals are what motivate you. In that case, you should definitely put some awesome stuff on your list and tell me about it.
So, Internets, what are your goals for the Earth's next trip around the sun?
Earlier this year, I wrote a blog
about the movie that had the most impact on me as an editor in response to my attendance at Editfest NY. In the post, I stated that Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring
was my first instinct, but it was a wrong choice if we were talking specifically about being inspired as an editor. I also mentioned that Lord of the Rings
deserves a blog post all of its own, because it was a whole different phenomenon.
Well, The Hobbit
comes out this week, so in an attempt to be topical, here is that blog post. Fellowship of the Ring
wins the prize for inspiring me to tell stories.
I was a freshman in high school when Fellowship
was released. I had never read the books. Other than a healthy obsession with X-Files
and a couple of books here and there, I wasn't really into anything overly fantastical. But then one day when I was standing in my cousin's living room on Thanksgiving break, I caught a TV spot for it. It was basically a shortened version of the "Shortcut to Mushrooms" bit toward the beginning of Fellowship
where the four hobbits first encounter a wraith and Frodo nearly puts on the ring. I had no idea why, but I was completely hooked.
I told my friends we should go see the movie. I think a couple of them had been interested, but largely the group was just as in the dark on the plot as I was. We went to see it during Christmas break sometime in January 2002.
I can't recall a time before that when I was so utterly captivated by a movie.
Sometime before this, I had started playing around with video production and filmmaking in general. I had put together a few little shorts and been shooting a lot of random stuff, playing around with assembling it. Fellowship
flipped a switch somewhere in my brain: storytelling mode ENGAGED.
Funnily enough, my circle of friends and I became slightly obsessed with everything related to Lord of the Rings
. We all read the books, bought the merch, and speculated about the adaptations while we eagerly awaited December 2002 and The Two Towers
. We were all bookish drama nerds, so this was a pretty good fit to say the least.
I found a home video recently from a Lord of the Rings
party we threw. The day the theatrical edition came out, I was assigned to retrieve it as I was the only one who had a drivers license. I ran to Target after school, grabbed it, and ran to my friend's basement. Teenaged girls laid all over the dark floor, swooning over Viggo and Orlando, bawling at Gandalf, and lamenting the months until Two Towers
Screenshot from our party video. It's not much, but you can see how emotionally invested we are, right?
I went to a midnight release of Two Towers
. My (female) friend dressed up like Gandalf. To this day, I've never been in a more engaged, dead quiet movie theater. When Haldir died in Helm's Deep, the collective gasp of the audience actually scared me. It was fantastic.
Anyway, back to Fellowship
. The months in between seeing Fellowship
and buying it on DVD were probably the most important to me as a storyteller. Remember here that I was 15: I downloaded a bootleg version of Fellowship
(recorded in the back of a movie theater, had Chinese subtitles!) and watched it repeatedly. Then I made mash-ups with it. I recut it, made my own trailers and promos, and intercut things I had shot with it. No, I don't bootleg anymore. I only really ever did the once, for that film.
I've seen Fellowship
about a million times (lost count around 75) because of this experimentation. I've torn it apart and put it back together. It didn't teach me editing, but it taught me how to tell a story. A big, complicated story with a lot of moving parts. All the stuff that goes into telling an effective story I learned here.
But what it really showed me and what really inspired me to keep pursuing filmmaking full on was the understanding that large portions of this movie are completely made out of thin air. Like Rivendell, when Frodo is on his balcony? All that stuff is computer generated or miniatures someone built or a matte painting or a combination of everything. What the CRAP man! All the creatures populating Middle Earth? Pretty much built by people. The amazing landscapes? Meticulously scouted and enhanced with computers. Everything from the architecture of Lothlorien to the impossibly ancient ruins of Moria to the simple forced perspective camera trickery absolutely blew me away. None of this stuff exists, but it does. It could have all been AWFUL, but somehow these people managed to put it all together, and it's nearly seamless.
It felt real, but it was a movie. It was fantasy, but it was built on real emotion. And people
built it for my enjoyment. It felt flawlessly expansive, and it inspired the hell out of me to keep creating.
After Fellowship of the Ring
and the months that came after, I made more stuff, and I thought about it differently. I read more, wrote more, and played around with Premiere a lot more. I made a lot of stuff and I put it on the Internet. Things that had a beginning, middle and end. Things that had rising and falling action, twists, character development, and emotional appeals.
I've occasionally heard from people my age that Lord of the Rings
was their Star Wars
. It took me a while to understand that, but I really do feel the same way. Like Star Wars
, Lord of the Rings
became this all-encompassing experience
of an entire world built just for you, unlike anything you'd ever seen before. If I hadn't seen Fellowship
when I did, I'm not really sure I would have been all-in with the whole media thing because I might not have realized my own creative storytelling ambitions.
Despite all the controversies of frames per second or 3D or 2D or too many movies, I'm getting pretty excited for The Hobbit
. I'm really happy I can enter that world again and experience a new story in Middle Earth.
My butt will be firmly planted somewhere in the upper middle of a 2D showing for The Hobbit
by 11:30 PM this Thursday night. I hope you'll join me. Hairy feet optional.
Alternate Title: 2000 Words on the TV show Friends that Nobody Ever Asked For
I know, right? Didn't that show end like years ago? Who has thought about it for more than a millisecond since then, other than to brainlessly watch the hours of reruns on 5 different channels at any given time?
I am a rabid
fan of Friends
. The last few seasons, I recorded every episode (ON VHS) for my friend who didn't have access to it for some reason. I've seen every episode about a billion times. Nobody will play my Friends
trivia game with me because no one else can ever win. My favorite episodes: The One with the Blackout, The One Where No One's Ready, and The One with the Embryos. I didn't have to look those up, and I didn't actually really have to think about it.
Just so you know the level of crazy you're dealing with here.
I usually talk about post-production in my blog, since that's what I know. I also like talking about story, and from there, character relationships. I enjoy writing, and thinking deeply about how characters would behave in real life situations in order to build real relationships into a script is something I've been working on. What better exercise than to tear apart a show like Friends
? And before I lose you completely, know that my point is to demonstrate that you can think critically about storytelling anywhere, even aged must see TV with laugh tracks.
Plus, editorial on Friends
is not that interesting to me, at least from a technique perspective. It's a multi-camera show, and I watched a vignette about the editing of it once. It was cool at the time, and now it's more of a "aw that's quaint" kind of a thing. It's an adequately edited sitcom, that's pretty much all I have to say about that.
Here's a weird thing. Friends
ran through the 90s into 2003, so when I watched it I was pretty young. It ended when I was about 15..maybe 17. I was just watching a rerun the other night (duh) from later in the series (not even the beginning!) and someone referred to Monica as a baby-crazy 25 year old woman. I'm 26. It is weird to age when these characters will never get any older.
Anyway, now being older and having some knowledge of story and characters, when I think about the various relationships on the show, I get kind of irked.
[I would say spoiler alert, but seriously?]
First, Monica and Chandler. Here's my problem with the Monica/Chandler relationship. I didn't like that they ended up together from a random drunken hookup, especially considering she was looking for Joey originally. I liked the characters together though, so I wasn't really bothered. I could basically write that off as a thing that happened if I really had to, but it felt like a cheap ploy to quickly get them together without any of the messy character junk. How do you bring two characters together that have had a good platonic relationship for YEARS and originally hated each other with a 22 minute-at-a-time run-time? Get them drunk in London, I guess.
However, I did feel like Janice was Chandler's great love, and he let his immaturity allow her to get away, but only because the writers made her more unbearable than any person really ever would be. He was annoyed at her quirks and eventually broke up with her because he couldn't take it, and we cheered for him because OH. MY. GAWD, right? That kind of sucks for Janice, as a character. But to a less interesting degree, I can see this happening in life. Then there was the point when they accidentally met online and got back together, but Janice was in an unhappy marriage at the time and Chandler decided he didn't want to break them up since they had a kid. So they probably would have ended up together.
But then at the end of the series they go for the cheap shot with Janice, bringing her back for a couple last gags where Chandler is completely repulsed by her. And I don't believe that for a second. Chandler is an impressionable guy, and he just takes on the repulsion from Monica. Deep down, he's still hot for Janice. There were multiple times when he was totally fine with being with her forever, what changed? Nothing, just poor writing. His character goes from A to C without any of the stuff in the middle, and the audience buys it because "hahaha, Janice is legit stupid, yo."
Now, an example of a decade-long platonic relationship becoming something else that I felt really failed: I never bought Rachel and Joey as a thing. Joey starts to see Rachel as more than a friend suddenly, then Rachel does the same, and it's all this weird sort of convenient-to-the-plot bullshit for a while. But then they make out and are instantly repulsed by each other? Wha? I guess I can see what they're going for here, trying to illustrate the idea of suddenly being in love, and suddenly dropping out of love from a lack of sexual chemistry, but it's like preschool level interpretation. This relationship was just a way to pass the time, and it was rather silly from a writing perspective. Audience manipulation at best.
Phoebe and Mike are lovely and I wished they were together longer so we could see how that turned out. They had their moments of well that's a little convenient, namely when they decided to move in together before discussing marriage, Phoebe realized Mike didn't want to get married and she did, then they call it off, then they're back in in dramatic fashion when she's being proposed to by an old lover. The later seasons of Friends were pretty hard to believe compared to the early ones, but I guess you have to figure out how to keep it interesting somehow. I always appreciated that the writing was easy to related to even if it was dramatized, and the last few seasons lost that edge.
There's a big part of me that felt Richard and Monica were the best relationship on the show. Plus she was infertile, so they could have totally skipped kids anyway! Not that Monica, the baby-crazy 25 year old (really? How many single girls do I know that have considered sperm donors? None!) would have been good with that idea. I think in the end, Richard just wanted to be back with Monica (another oh no I've been proposed to by two guys in one day situation) out of loneliness and that wouldn't have worked very well. Once they did have kids, he would have eventually resented them AND Monica and would have probably jumped off a building or something. Pete (Jon Favreau) was her best choice. He was cool as hell, and he would have gotten over the whole cage fighting thing after a while. To break up with him because you can't see him hurting himself? Bummer, and a lame way to write off a recurring character.
And here's the big one: I DEFINITELY didn't think Ross and Rachel should have ever been together. The writing for their relationship was among the worst in any sitcom, ever. They could have been interesting, but the writers never knew how to deal with them when they were together. They were an interesting couple, having a history and coming into each others' lives here and there. But they were boring together, so they constantly split them apart. When Ross cheated originally (WE WERE ON A BREAK -- no Ross, that's not cool), that should have been the end. But then they go on to make a whole series of poor decisions together. Yipee!
Rachel's ending was dreadfully bad, too. Her story within Friends was about growing up, gaining independence, figuring out what she wanted out of life, and making it happen. In a way, the entire show was really about her specifically because she actually had a full character arc. Minus the complications of Ross along the way, a love which is more out of convenience than anything, she followed a pretty good, believable path. She didn't always take big steps forward, and that made her character believable and likable. Then by the end, she's made it as a fashion executive and a single mom, and she's got the chance of a lifetime to live her dream in Paris. She'll finally be free of the constant distraction of Ross and meet a nice french man who will actually not be neurotic.
So what do they do? Have Rachel ditch Paris at the last minute to come back to Ross, for the 8th or 9th time. Oh yes, it'll stick THIS TIME! Way to go, writers. You destroy a decade's worth of character development by making her too co-dependent to take the next step in life and get the f*** away from her crazy on-again-off-again boyfriend of 12 years. Normal people don't DO this. I hated it so much. And their feelings all came back around to one drunken hookup that re-awakened things. I'm sorry, but that's also not a thing that usually happens. I understand it's a sitcom and you can't exactly portray a complex moment of weakness turning into love or whatever, but come on! We went down this road with these characters over and over, and there was NO indication that this time they were different people besides the fact they made a baby. It made Rachel weak and Ross stupid, and that was the end. What does that tell women who followed Rachel's story and drew inspiration from it?
While I'm on the topic of making babies, I'll comment on one of the high points of the show, in my opinion: that Monica and Chandler couldn't conceive. I can't remember that ever being a topic that had come up in a sitcom, let alone a prime time sitcom, and I appreciated seeing that side of a relationship and how they dealt with it, especially because of Monica's previously mentioned obsession with babies. It was a great way to approach the whole "baby episode event!!!" in a fresh, modern way. This was a real situation that the characters had to deal with and figure out instead of some cheap audience manipulation like running to the airport at the last possible second. The easy way to go would have been getting Monica pregnant with twins and hilarity ensues. Instead, she has to deal with the fact her dream won't come out just the way she thought it would, which is often how things actually go. At least a lot more often than getting proposed to by two guys at once.
As I think critically about characters and how they interact, digging into television I enjoy or used to enjoy is actually a pretty interesting exercise. You're familiar with the characters and stories, but when you look at them critically, it's often quite different. It also helps me to avoid a lot of the tropes, or use them effectively. With a show like Friends where you have 6 primary characters interconnecting with each other and doing little else, there's a lot of angles to consider. And loads more short term relationships I didn't even think about.
(Notice that I didn't touch on the unbelievability of their living conditions or work life, or the fact they're always sitting around together at a coffee shop. I want the people themselves to be real, but if I wanted to watch 6 people try to live in a shoebox with no air conditioning in the Village, I'd probably find something on HBO instead. My belief is effectively suspended in the ways that matter.)
Story isn't just important for writing. As an editor, I obviously have to cut things in a way that are believable. If I don't understand how humans talk to each other (and I often don't), I can't cut a scene in a believable way. That's how I'm justifying this rant, anyway. The TV box tells me things.
You can find storytelling exercises anywhere. Even on TBS, six times a night.
There you have it. My bizarre fandom in 2000 words on a television show that ended a decade ago. I regret nothing.
Occasionally I'll find myself in a discussion about FCP or Avid or Adobe certifications, typically on Twitter because where else do I ever talk to anyone
? Usually a younger editor is asking about a specific certification, and a dozen industry vets jump in and go on and on about how certification is a complete waste of time and money, and no one should ever under any circumstances get a certification.
And I won't be surprised if any comments I get on this post are more of the same because I'm going to be uncharacteristically blunt and tell you that your opinion of certification is probably wrong.
Oh no I di'n't, girlfriend.
Yeah, I'll say it! If you can find no worth in a software certification for anyone, you're dead wrong. Boom. End of story. If you think I'm a moron, at least one of the following thoughts is probably yours. Here is why you are wrong.
"Certification just shows you can push some buttons."
EXACTLY. That is true, to an extent. If you have a certification, it shows that to some degree of accuracy determine by the powers that be, you can effectively control an NLE. Or you understand it well enough to feel your way through it. You have to have a good foundation in it, or else you wouldn't have passed the test. Does it mean you're a great editor? Hell no! Is it an indicator that you know what you're doing? Hell no! No one is saying that. They're just saying "I know where to hit the buttons in Avid to make the things do stuff, and here's proof." This is really useful for a younger editor. The job market is beyond saturated. If you don't have a lot of reputation or experience, you'll get filtered out quickly for the smallest reasons. A certification could possibly keep you in the hiring process through a round of cut-offs, simply because you have some tiny amount of demonstrable technical skill.
"A certification won't get you hired."
Nobody in their right mind gets a certification thinking it alone will lead directly to a post job. A certification is supporting evidence in two ways: 1) you can push the previously mentioned buttons; and 2) you are motivated enough to accomplish something that does require a good degree of studying and effort, not to mention some travel and time away is sometimes involved. Have you ever looked at a certification exam? I would bet many busy editors would fail because they aren't that deeply ingrained in the interface. They found their own path and have stuck with it. If you learn the software the way the manufacturer intended, you might be able to approach it a little differently. You might learn 3 ways to make something happen. You'll undoubtedly evolve -- and you should, because what the hell does a manufacturer know about real world editing? -- but you'll also be more open to taking different paths to the same end.
If you're naturally a good editor, you might find yourself a little frustrated at your technical skills. Your left brain can't keep up with your right brain. When I was in college finishing my degree, I was a little worried about my tech skills. I knew I had to be top notch when I entered the job market, and school just didn't give me everything I wanted. My professor suggested certification (I'm simplifying the story here though), so I did it. It gave me a broader understanding of FCP on a technical level that opened the doors to digging deeper which made me more confident overall.
"A certification doesn't help you tell your story."
Being fluent in the technology absolutely helps you tell a story. If you aren't distracted by the technical aspects of editing, you can work faster and spend more time on editorial decisions. A certification can serve as your foundation to being fluent in the tech.
"People who are certified always start off job interviews talking about it like it matters."
Maybe some do, but these are probably the same people who don't really understand their industry. Maybe they're inexperienced, maybe they're dense. You can't avoid either case in ANY industry. A few people that think their certification is a passport to greatness doesn't negate the entirety of certification.
And in many markets to many hiring dudes, certifications don't matter at all. However, if you're in a smaller city or you're applying to corporate jobs, you might be interviewed by an HR person, at least for the first round. You have to get past them to get to the person you really want to talk to, and they don't know anything about your industry. They speak in credentials. Lines on a resume matter to THEM.
"OK, take the class then, but why spend the money on the actual certification?"
Why NOT get the actual certification? You took the time to learn all the information in a specific way, drop the extra money for the piece of paper proving you did it. You can list it on your resume. You'll be in the database, have the paper, and maybe even get some logo you can use somewhere officially if you follow the 20 page rulebook on usage.
"There is no reason to get certified."
Gets you past the threshold of "does this silly person even know ANYTHING?"
Can help your confidence as an editor.
Shows you're committed.
Helps your storytelling skills indirectly.
A solid credential if it matters to your market.
A firm foundation of the NLE which might open you to things you missed in self-learning.
Motivation to keep learning, for the goal-oriented among us.
Newer editors can use it as leverage to show they give a damn. Older editors can use it to show their skills are still relevant.
AND: A FRAME-ABLE PIECE OF PAPER!
That's my argument. Yeah, certification isn't for everyone. But it's not for no one.
This is an on-going post-production diary I’m keeping while I cut my first feature film, The Impersonators
, an indie comedy.
I just realized it's been two months since I last updated about The Impersonators
The reason is because there hasn't been much to say. Or so I thought. You see, everything has been going really smoothly. Avid has been mostly cooperating. The scenes have been coming together well. Everything is organized, in place, and running well.
I delivered the first rough cut of the whole film a few weeks ago. Some decisions have been made for pickup shoots that won't be happening until the spring. Needless to say, I have a lot of time to work with the editors cut and start figuring out the sound design, as it seems I'll be doing much of the sound editing as well. But not the final mix. I know my limits.
There's still a lot of work to be done. It IS a rough cut, and all of the scenes need to be individually assessed. Some need to be rebuilt. But technically speaking, I've had absolutely no issues with Avid beyond the initial hiccup of the media not wanting to ingest properly.
I didn't think I had much to say about this since everything went better than expected, but here's a list of the stuff I did that I liked and didn't like about my first feature rough cut.
- I'm glad I watched every take and took notes. I only occasionally went back into the notes to check on what I wanted, but it helped me to remember my thoughts anyway. However, I wish I had done a lined script instead of just listing notes. It would have helped me a lot with grabbing the proper takes.
- I wish I had an assistant to sync audio. I was my own assistant. I was a damn fine assistant, too!
- Note cards on a wall were a definite plus. This is a pretty linear film, but I still needed the reference point of a note card occasionally to figure out where I was within the narrative.
- Choosing Avid was the right way to go. After the setup, I had no real issues and I can be reasonably confident that the media is being managed properly. Stuff isn't going to disappear offline.
- Splitting the sequences in Avid by scene was a good call for me. It's not always one scene at a time, as some scenes are really short inserts, but I did split up everything by scenes and acts and it's been helpful for focusing on one thing at a time. After I make more changes, I'm going to start to combine things into longer sequences to be sure scenes are flowing properly into each other. Then eventually, everything will be assembled into one timeline.
- Screenlight has been really nice for previews. It's quick and secure and it plays on anything. That's been a relief.
So it seems I'll be working with this cut until the spring when we add and alter more scenes. I'm sure I'll have a lot to say when I start doing sound effects, because audio is a dark art that very few understand. I'm glad the director is willing to take the time necessary to plan and shoot what's needed to tell the story in the best way possible. I'm also glad I've been given such freedom to assemble the film without someone hanging over my shoulder. I appreciate collaborative filmmakers. Too many directors are unwilling to hand over their footage to a dedicated editor.
Anyway, we're still on track to complete the film in 2013. But films take forever, man!
For the conclusion to my epic trilogy on parenthood in production and post, I've been thinking a lot about tortoises.
(You may have figured out by now that I enjoy animal metaphors.)
You see, a female tortoise will crawl out of the ocean up onto the beach, find a nice safe, sandy area, and plop out a bunch of eggs. Then…she high tails it back into the ocean, and the little babies hatch and supposedly instinctively head into the sea as well to start their own lives. If they make it without some winged creature snatching them up, that is.
I feel like this is how people tend to think about editor moms, especially people outside the industry. Working moms, they're tortoises. They do their part, and head back into their career and expect that the kids will be reasonably self-sufficient or whatever. I mean, how could any woman choose to part with their children for the sake of a career? My word!
< /1962 >
And unfairly, it seems more guilt is pushed onto female editors who have kids.
Well, it turns out it's not only possible to balance being a good mother with being a good editor, but it happens a LOT. Women in every kind of video production market from LA to the Heartland to the deep South (probably) are providing for their families, making sacrifices, and pursuing their life's passion. And one of them is Monica Daniel.
Monica has an unconventional background as an editor. She didn't go to film school. Instead, she has a Bachelor of Science in psychology, and an unofficial minor in dance choreography. Many editors that find their way to post in or after college find their rhythm through other means, and for Monica it was through dance. Her last year of school, she realized she wanted to be in film and television and attended a filmmaking bootcamp called the Digital Video Intensive. From there, she moved to LA to try her luck and eventually made her way to E! Entertainment. There, she quickly made her way from Production Assistant to Assistant Editor, then was promoted to Editor after a year and a half.
Monica has been with her husband Mario for 15 years, married for 5. She has two children, Gabriel and Ivy, ages 3 and 1 1/2.
When you first began your career, what were your thoughts or plans on having a family?
I knew I always wanted a family but I didn't know when. I wanted to be more established and financially stable before I had children. Children are very expensive and time consuming.
Why did you want to have children?
I have always been family oriented. The idea of having children to play with and discover new things with is very appealing.
How did your family life determine where you chose to live?
Ideally I would be living in an area with a better school system, but that would require a longer commute and more time in traffic and less time with my children. Los Angeles can be a very expensive place to live and unfortunately we had to balance proximity to work with what was affordable and a good enough neighborhood. We are still figuring out what we can do to get better schooling for our children when they are old enough. I may have to end up working more hours to pay for private school.
When you were discussing the prospect of adding kids to your family, what did you think would be the main challenge? What ended up being the main challenge?
We were always worried about money and who would take care of them if we were both at work and these concerns ended up being the biggest challenge. Luckily, I make enough money as an editor to take care of my family while my husband stays at home and watches the kids. The biggest challenge actually came this past year when we learned that our son, who is now 3 years old, is Autistic. He attends a special pre-school and has several therapies per week to help him with his Autism. I do my best to make sure that his special therapies are paid for, and my husband takes him to his therapy and evaluations.
As a woman, how did you maintain your career during pregnancy and maternity leave? Were you ever concerned that you wouldn't be taken seriously or might be passed over for opportunities because of pregnancy and motherhood?
I was lucky because at the division of NBC Universal that I work at, they provide maternity leave benefits and are very understanding when it comes to pregnancy. Benefits were also provided through the state. I was concerned about how people viewed me while I was pregnant and I didn't tell anyone until I was further along but I have a very established reputation where I work and it didn't concern people as far as quality of my work was concerned. While I was 9 months pregnant with my daughter, I was even asked to be the on site editor for the Red Carpet coverage of the Academy Awards. The Producers had their pick of editors and they asked me to take the very stressful and critical on site editing position despite my condition. My circumstances are not the norm, but the exception. Anywhere else I would have been very nervous and worried. Even though it is illegal to discriminate against pregnancy, it still happens unofficially. Someone else will get hired over you because they are not pregnant.
Did you ever worry about missing opportunities in your career to be home with children? On the flip side, did you ever worry about missing moments with your kids because of your career? How do you balance this? Do you feel like it's a sacrifice in some ways?
I think about this every day. No matter what choice I make, I am sacrificing something. I love my job and I love my children. My job requires long hours and when I work on scripted projects, it is even longer hours. I want memories of my children growing up. I am still trying to find the balance. I end up sacrificing my own health to spend as much time with my children as I can. I don't get nearly as much sleep as I should, all of my exercise comes from playing with my kids, and I have very little time for myself.
When you're in the middle of a big project with long hours, how does it affect your family life? How do you alter things to make your family life manageable in these situations?
It is very difficult. My husband is understanding but it is still a challenge. I try to see my kids every moment I can. The main reason I agreed to get an iPhone was so I can FaceTime with the kids when I am at work for long hours.
I think we'd agree that the editing world is male-dominated. As an editor mom, how do you handle yourself in this predominately male environment?
I do work mostly with men. I grew up with my brothers and uncles so I am used to being around the boys. I work hard to earn the respect of my male colleagues and that includes producers and directors as well. I never use being a female as an excuse for anything. I depict myself as a professional editor, not a female editor. I once had a job interview to cut special features for a documentary. In the interview, the Producer told me he would probably assign me the package about a love story because as a woman I would be better at cutting romance over action. I actually prefer action over romance, but the producer's assumption that I would be better at a love story because I am a woman is just one stereotype I have had to deal with. It doesn't help that I am on the shorter side and look 12 years younger than I am, so to someone who meets me for the first time, I do look a bit like a little girl.
How do you deal with childcare and unexpected challenges that come up when raising kids (i.e. sickness) while also balancing often time-sensitive tasks such as editing on a deadline?
Daycare is very expensive but a necessity for us. My husband mainly takes care of the children because of my unpredictable work schedules.
When working from home, how do you manage your time with your children around?
I have my edit system in a separate room. I will have lunch with the kids and take breaks to be with them. They are both in daycare now so during the day it isn't much of an issue during the day.
Some in the industry use the phrase "golden handcuffs" to refer to having to pass on or not seek further opportunities that involve more risk but may also progress your career further because of the responsibility of having a family. Do you feel like you're in a "golden handcuffs" situation? What's your opinion on this outlook?
I am definitely in a Golden Handcuffs situation. Currently my income supports my family and I can't afford to not work at my current editing rates. I have been recently speaking with more people on the high profile scripted projects and they all tell me the same things. It requires really long hours and additional hours of your own time to edit independently. I have worked on independent scripted projects but not a studio project. If I wanted to transition into scripted studio projects I would have to go back to Assisting. Which means less pay for more hours. I am still learning as much as I can about Assisting in the scripted world just in case one day I may be able to take a job offer. Even though the odds are working against me right now, I haven't given it up.
I see you occasionally lamenting the idea of working on more narrative projects, but not being willing or able to take the increase in hours and decrease in pay. This dilemma weighs heavily on many editors, parents or not. How do you deal with this?
I am at a crossroads in my career right now where I would like to move it in a different direction. Even though I have the "Golden Handcuffs" to deal with, I have not given up on leading my career where I want it to be. I attend Editing seminars, attend user groups, mixers, give presentations about my work and meet new people in post all the time. My path may be a slower path but I don't want to face my children in the future and tell them that their mother gave up without even trying.
Do your kids understand if you're not around or busy for periods at a time? What do you hope they learn from seeing your work?
They are too young to understand why I am gone. They just know I am gone. It is really tough when my husband tells me that the children were asking for me and they tell him to pick me up so I can play with them.
Despite the challenges of parenthood, what are the positives to having kids? What makes it worthwhile?
Kids are wonderful. Everything is new to them. They look to you as their parent for comfort and unconditional love. It is a great feeling and hard to describe. They are so proud of their little accomplishments and it reminds me that there are some things that my career cannot replace.
What is your advice to someone in the industry who is considering having children, but is worried about being able to have a career and a family?
It will be hard for everyone. You must remind yourself what is important to you. There is no easy answer. This is a very competitive industry. I am competing with people who will do anything to succeed. I will not sacrifice the well being of my family for my career. They are more important. I use my career to support my family. Luckily, I love my career.
Across all careers, there's an old fashioned notion that once you have kids, as a woman you'll settle down and focus on raising them instead of your career. You're one of many women who don't choose that path. What do you have to say to someone that would question your decision?
I do not only live for my children but for myself as well. As a parent you want to be an example for your children. I want to show them that you can have a family and follow your dreams.
Breaking news: you can
be a great mom and a successful editor without being a land-dwelling reptile about it. Monica has figured out a balance between work and kids, and it can serve as an inspiration to all parents in our industry. We all make sacrifices in different areas of our lives, and a female editor might sometimes feel a heavier burden. I think it's important for women in post to discuss this and realize that so many of us are in the same rocky boat of balancing home life and pursuing more aspects of an editing career. And it doesn't have to be children. All home life applies -- newly married spouses figuring out how to compromise on an area to settle in; childless couples taking less fulfilling work to earn more money to buy a home; or even individuals trying to maintain friendships with erratic work schedules with long hours. I didn't make these issues up and they aren't mine. I saw them all mentioned on Twitter just today
The thing is, regardless of your circumstances, everyone has a home life and perhaps a family life, and it's something that requires careful thought and cultivation to maintain. At some point in your editing career, you have to consider how much give you have between the two. And you aren't the only one trying to feel your way through this.
I know I said this was a three part exploration in parenthood, but I'm kind of silly so screw it. I'm keeping the conversation going, and not just about parenthood. There's more to the story than this one aspect of an editor's personal life, and I aim to dig it up. Look for more posts about figuring out all that messy life stuff that gets in the way when you're just trying to transcode some stuff, man.
You can find Monica's work on several shows produced by NBC Universal. You can also find her on Twitter
or her blog