Happy Valentines Day Everyone!

As you know, we’ve been working away on editing the film bit by bit,  being able to focus on the film sporadically whilst working on other projects. In two weeks time I wrap up my current job  with a Channel 5 documentary series, meaning I can focus on editing the film full time.

This is incredibly exciting! So I’d like to introduce you to my assistant editor Paul Hulligan!

Paul is an entrepreneur / professional marketer / aspiring professional documentary filmmaker.

Paul recently left a career in marketing to pursue his passion for documentary filmmaking. He is Co-Founding Director of the London Documentary Network CIC (which is where we met), organising events to help connect documentary filmmakers, and has started up a freelance collective video production agency called Riot, making all types of videos for corporate clients.

Paul’s never worked on a feature documentary film before, and see’s this as the perfect opportunity to learn from someone with more experience on how to tackle the edit.

Paul has recently finished logging the latest footage, syncing the sound and is now working his way through some of the main interviews – editing them down in size by removing pauses, irrelevant action, and mistakes in dialog (take a look at the the millions of lines Paul has had to cut out of the timeline below), so when they are handed over to be transcribed they are concise.

This also helps when structuring the story as it makes it easier to navigate through the footage to find key material.

This ‘timeline’ will be made into a digital video and sent to be transcribed.

So as this film is an exploration of the choices people make about their treatment, as well as the obstacles and difficulties they can face… I’ve been thinking a lot about what it would feel like trying to navigate a tonne of information when scouring the internet, a place that many people invariably turn.

And eventually doing this will bring up medical journals…

But without previous experience in the academic language or interpreting methodology, this can be even more confusing. Even major newspapers with writers experienced in the field can sometimes misinterpret data.

The NHS showed this in an article discussing a recent study into the links between mental illness and cancer mortality, “The Mail Online, The Sun and The Independent produced broadly accurate coverage of the study, although the reporting tended to overstate the findings, suggesting that anxiety and depression were big risk factors for cancer. The Daily Telegraph misunderstood the study entirely, saying that “the people who were most distressed by their diagnosis were 32 per cent more likely to die from their cancer” and “staying positive could be the best way to fight the disease”.”

Then there are non-evidence based claims, which can also be misrepresented and used to take advantage of a patient’s need for a solution. People within the medical industry call this ‘quackery’ – those who sell a shoddy solution to the vulnerable.

How does one navigate this – Do you simply ignore everything that isn’t based on hardline evidence?

Or does one take a chance on anything that might work?

These are difficult questions at the core of this film.

We want to know more about how you may have approached researching and making these choices. If you’d like to share your story with us, we’d love to listen. Just reply to this email or connect via our Facebook page.

Thanks everyone. Have an awesome week!

Much Love,