Interview: Peter Sciberras on editing four key scenes in 'The Power of the Dog'
Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 5:07PM by Nathaniel R
Peter Sciberras, the Oscar-nominated editor of The Power of the Dog
Final interview of the season! Editing is often called "the invisible art" but it's very visible. The audience just doesn't always know what they're looking at. Editors make a million choices in how we see, absorb, and feel the movies we love. I was thrilled to sit down with the editor Peter Siberras, who is Oscar nominated for his rich work on Jane Campion's Best Picture nominated future classic The Power of the Dog. As we started talking we shared stories about falling in love with editing. Peter fell in love young when a housemate was making a music video and was having trouble finding an editor. "So, I gave it a shot one night at the age of 22," he recalls. "I instantly loved it. The second I did it I stopped thinking about any other career."
You can dip into everything you love about movies including cinematography, acting, and directing while you're editing, he explains. "Without doing all the hard work" he jokes. The editor's work is substantial after all. They essentially make the whole film over again after it's shot. Sciberra's big break came with David Michôd's thriller The Rover (2014) so he was already comfortable with dusty slow burn drama and building tension before Jane Campion came calling. For something a little different we focused on four specific beats in the film...
[This interview has been edited for length and clarity]
In Rose's restaurant we meet the characters and the central conflict begins.
NATHANIEL R: With editing you're working on so many individual pieces so how on earth are you also keeping the big picture in mind?
PETER SCIBERRAS: That usually comes from "the playdowns" after you make a first pass. You get a sense of where you are and it almost becomes like muscle memory, and thankfully I have a good memory. At one point I could recite the whole movie, word for word!
I want to discuss specific scenes so we can see what type of decisions you're making. So let's talk the restaurant scene where Phil burns the flowers. You're just meeting Peter and Rose. You've got Phil's agression and homophobia, all the cowboys...
That was one of the trickiest scenes from a technical point of view in terms of the amount of characters in play. There's a lot going on. The crux of that scene was always going to be Phil and Peter's interaction. That's the storyline that goes all the way through the movie so that's what we focused on first. Get that working. I try to block it and put the shots in roughly the right order. Then with the bite sized chunks you work on the drama of it. You need to remember this moment because Peter goes missing for quite a lot of the film and when he returns your mind needs to go straight back to this. The scene we played quite evenhanded. Giving both actors quite a lot of screentime. Some of the other scenes we let Phil drive. But that one we tried to get to know Peter as much as we can.
It's about timing and finding the best performances, and then from there you try to tighten. You can't take too long because it's in the first twenty minutes and you need to keep it moving.
For people to get hooked?
Yes, you really have to be economical. From there it goes into the kitchen and Rose notices. It's just building and building the drama and usually the simplest structure is the best.
How does Jane shoot? Does she give you a lot of coverage and choices or does she only want very specific things?
We had quite a few choices. Peter we used all his shots but on Phil we had quite a few options. You're always trying to orientate the audience. The characters create shapes and you follow certain lines around the room. It's very direct down the table at first. It's almost a geometric puzzle because you have to track where characters are moving.
How about the closeup of Phil dousing the flower in the water. Did that change?
There was a moment where we used a close up of the flower being lit on fire instead but we chose to use the closeup for the dousing because Phil is telling this story while he's lighting the flower so it felt good to be on him and watching him.
So, the closeup is the going in the for the kill.
Yeah, yeah. The choices are really about what will give you the feeling you're searching for?
What scene for you was the most difficult to edit?
The scene where Pete walks down the campsite and then back again. We had a lot of coverage there. That was the trickiest scene. There were a ton of choices and great shots and a lot of production value. There were Kiwi extras who had grown their beards for six months. The costumes looked great. There was a lot to look at but you can easily be used to seduced into using all of it. The more we worked on it the more we started to throw things out. That walk became one shot when we started with literally 15 angles and closeups of Peter's feet.
You could have cut around it, in other words.
But we just stayed in it. Because he kind of wins in a way. He doesn't react to the people hurling insults and they calm down. And then he walks back.
It's such a simple choice but it's perfect. How did you feel about cutting out all that production value and the extras?
I'm ruthless like that. I'm the audience and I don't wanna see that! [Laughter]
The choice forces you to stay with Peter. It refocuses you on his strength and performance.
He's got such an amazing physicality in that scene. He's such a shape. And he's kind of bird like himself in a way. There was something so pure about that figure in that environment And cutting away took away from that experience rather than bringing more to it. That's what it always comes down to. What's the important element? Adding will either enhance the experience or subtract from it.
And when Phil calls him over, the dialogue is a big turn. They had just had the moment where Pete had seen him naked swimming. There's a lot of tension that hasn't resolved so it's a big landing. The audience is wondering what is this going to be about? How to play that dialogue? We had a lot of angles but we chose to Phil quite wide so we could always see Peter in the frame and that also keeps the audience further away to ask their questions, rather than be seduced by Phil in a close-up. What is Phil up to? Pete is in a big close-up, kind of laughing it off or nervous or maybe he's excited?
I was really happy to see a movie where there was so many two shots and medium and wide shots. So many movies now are just shot / reaction shot -- endless closeups. You can't get a sense of the space or how people are relating to each other!
That was really important to us.
I don't want that. I don't want him to be with Phil at all.
Okay one more scene. I love the moment when Rose is running out to stop Pete from riding with Phil but George arrives and stops her. "I don't want that" -- I don't mean to keep bringing up scenes with all the characters.
It's the intertwining of the rope. Jane calls it 'a figure eight'. Each character gets woven in. It's a really cool metaphor for what is happening structurally.
In so many movies that would have been a tight closeup but I'm so glad it wasn't. It's like you're standing there and the space is so open but she's so lost in it.
We had a kind of over the shoulder shot but we threw it out. Kirsten is so great in that scene. Every single take! I think we used the second to last take. Knockout performance. We did not want to cut away from her. This is it.
Sometimes I think editors should be the ones voting on the acting awards because you're the ones seeing all the takes.
[Laughter] We've seen it all. But it only takes one good take for a good performance.
Last question. What do you think people primarily don't understand about editing?
Probably just how much is involved. It's not just 'put this shot with this shot.' It has tentacles out in every department. I was in sound mix. I was in every vfx review. And there's "vertical editing" as well. Like when Pete finds Bronco Henry's magazines. Essentially we had this beautiful handheld shot that Ari lit. You flip open the pages and get to the pictures of the muscle men. The first page was text and it worked but we needed something that looks really striking as the page to land on. And so later, looking through magazines, we found an image that was essentially the same pose as Phil coming out of the water. And so when you cut to Pete's reaction and then when you see Phil come out of the water, it's similar. The pale back. Just those little things. It's so layered. The editor is involved in every discussion from the shoot onwards to the very very end.
more interviews
more on The Power of the Dog
Oscar visual nominee charts
Reader Comments (4)
He get my vote. Everything works in The Power of the Dog like a Swiss watch.
Fantastic interview! Really highlights just how crucial editing is to a film, and love the specificity of focusing on particular scenes/beats.
Also highlights the egregiousness of omitting it from the Oscars telecast, but I know I'm preaching to the choir here.
I think, unless you've edited projects yourself, or are aware with what exactly editors do, it's very easy to misunderstand the severity of the editor's role in the storytelling process.
I've created two web series in the past, always writer/director/actor/producer hats ... and I was very lucky to have editors who understood my voice. At the time I didn't have an idea, but looking back at those projects now, I can see just how skilled they were.
Well, I just shot my first short, and this time I'm editing. I've edited videos so it's not entirely new territory--and I've had friends say that editing is tedious and painstaking--but I REALLY love it. It's a whole lot of fun.
The editor has control over so many subtleties... for instance, there's a bit of improv in my short, so one scene could've beed edited with about three or four different intentions / connotations in how it would propel the story forward. Only I could know how impressive the way in which I edited it was, how smooth it all gelled together, but that's also part of the fun. It's really opened my eyes to how amazing and underrated editors truly are.
All this to say - the editor is driving the story, the pace, the humor etc way more than most realize.
And this makes me want to rewatch Power of the Dog! I've been pretty firmly in the "admired, didn't love" camp, but I do want to give it another chance. Love the note about the male physique and the similarities.
This is so interesting and insightful. Exactly the kind of educational exercise the Academy should be doing to raise interest towards every one of their 23 awards. Thanks for spotlighting this editor, who I'm sure is happy to discuss his process and not asked about it that often.