Photo credit: Chuck Zlotnick
(500) Days of Summer: (15) Questions for Marc Webb and Alan Bell
“You should know up front. This is not a love story.” So says the narrator of director Marc Webb’s first feature, “(500) Days of Summer,” a film about nothing if not about love. But that disclaimer, along with the hard stop suggested in the film's enumerated title, predicts a particularly bumpy run of love between Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel). We're not surprised then when Tom, a would-be architect who writes treacly copy for an LA-based greeting card company, says he's in love with new employee Summer, or that he spends much of their year-and-a-half relationship waiting for her to say it back.
Because this “postmodern” romantic comedy is told entirely from Tom’s point of view, Webb and editor Alan Bell were challenged with creating onscreen nothing less than a multitrack capture of Tom’s love-besotted sensibility. They managed it by leveraging a rich mix of production and postproduction techniques such as nonlinear narrative, dream sequences, musical numbers, and split-screen exposition. And they edited it all together in realtime HD using Final Cut Pro.
Recently, Webb and Bell discussed how they used Final Cut and other tools to realize their vision for the film.
Your film is described as a postmodern love story. Why?
Marc Webb: Postmodern means different things to different people. People use the term for “(500) Days” because it's a self-aware fusion of different techniques and styles (dance sequences, black-and-white educational films, split screens, narrators) created to relate what's going on in Tom's head rather than capturing some objective reality. That said, at heart it's a very traditional story about relationships.
What in the script made you want to direct it as your first feature?
MW: It was the script I wish I had written. It just felt real to me, and alive, like whoever had written it had something they wanted to say. It was fun; it had heart; but it also touched on big ideas. The technical stuff was an interesting challenge, but at the end of the day this story had a soul. My job was pretty simple — try to invoke in the audience what I felt when I was reading it for the first time.
How was it working with your lead actors?
MW: Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are both fantastic actors, but their approach and preparation are different. Joe and I had a lot of deep, long conversations about the arc of the character and the beats within the scenes. We spent a lot of time blocking stuff out. Zooey prepares in a more private way. She's extremely thoughtful, but her greatest gift is her intuition. She flows in this magical way, reacting to the life in the moment. You can sense she's feeling everything that Summer is feeling. And when you put the two of them together, it's magic.
How did telling the story from Tom’s point of view affect the shoot?
MW: It gave us the license to get creative: we were relating a feeling rather than capturing reality. But it also gave us some important rules about how to cover the film: we literally see only what Tom sees (even if it's in his head); we never enter a room before he does; we never (well, rarely) see a face that he doesn't see. We're with him all the time. These simple things really help put the audience in Tom's shoes.
Were the film’s radical time shifts written or edited in?
MW: Time-shifting was in the script. Why? This is a movie about a guy remembering a relationship, and you don't remember such a thing linearly. The movie is also about expectations colliding with reality, so manipulating the structure allowed us to play with that idea. But the film's not that out of order; it’s not nearly as drastic as “Memento” or “Pulp Fiction.” Since most movies are shot out of order anyway, the trickiest part was actually trying to create the slight Southern California seasonal shifts to let the audience feel as if 500 days had actually passed.
You shot “(500) Days” on film rather than in HD.
MW: I shoot almost exclusively on film because I still find it to be the most pleasing format. I say that knowing you can do extraordinary things with smaller HD cameras that you just can’t do with big film cameras. Ultimately, they're just different tools you can use depending on your situation. In my opinion, David Fincher is really the guy who's made the best use of digital formats on a big scale.
Why did you choose to edit in Final Cut Pro?
Alan Bell: In my first meeting with Marc, I said in no uncertain terms that I wanted to cut on Final Cut Pro. This was my seventh feature film using it. In fact, I used it to cut the very first feature film edited in HD, "Little Manhattan.” Once you’ve cut in HD, there’s really no reason, financial or otherwise, for cutting on anything else.
I prefer Final Cut because it offers me an open and easy way to move media and elements in and out of the system, while handling multiple file types and sizes in the same timeline. So it just works better and faster than any other editing solution out there. Marc was open to using it, and I think he’s now a convert.
MW: What decided it for me was when Alan told me that we'd be able to test screen HD rough cuts of the film rather than the lower-res output available on other systems. I used to edit all my videos, so I have a fairly extensive background as an editor, and I like trying new things and technologies. I felt it was important to try Final Cut Pro in a serious way, and now I’m cutting more on Final Cut, in part because it's just so accessible.




