August 28, 2006
Film Editing
From a daunting surfeit of footage shot out of sequence, the editor works with the director to extract and weave together the best material, their every decision shaping the film’s rhythm and mood. Superb editing can whittle down a chaotic production or a bewildering script into 90 sleek minutes of coherent screen time. It can deliver a jab to the viewer’s solar plexus with a mere song cue or cutaway. An editor can change the timbre of an actor’s entire performance simply by deciding to shorten or lengthen a pause. And, if he’s good, he can do all this without the viewer even noticing his craftsmanship.
comments
Good article, and I think the writer answers its own question. From the examples of scenes given, the problem is not so much with the editing but with the material the editor is given to work with, which is to say, the way the film is directed.
If the director had shot the scene of Meryl Streep in one long dolly shot then that’s what probably would have been edited into the final cut. The films are being directed in a very general way with little thought of where to put the camera – so, they put it everywhere, shoot lots of film, because film is somehow the cheapest item during a Hollywood film given all the other huge costs involved.
Is it any wonder most films seems so similar and safe?
Also, editing on film is/was a relatively slow process, Murch once said in an interview that on Apocalypse Now they only averaged about a 2 cuts a day. However, even with digital nonlinear editing, the editing of a film can take just as long, because the editors have too much footage and too many options to use in the computer and too many people in the committee.
Stan Brakhage was probably the first to experiment with super-fast cutting, and he did it while cutting on film in his cabin in Colorado, far from the MTV world. I’m not sure what point I’m making here, so I think I’ll stop now.
I just ordered Murch’s In the Blink of an Eye. The whole process is very interesting to me. And I agree with your assessment of the problem (if that is the right word) being camera placement / directorial decision making in the filmmaking moment.
Having just edited 26 hours of footage into an hour and a half, I am beginning to have an understanding of the anxiety of options available in the editing process.
“The greater purpose is to make a cut that works dramatically but doesn’t draw attention to itself,” says Andrew Hafitz, who has edited films by Whit Stillman and Larry Clark as well as MTV’s “True Life” series.
That statement, in the article, reminded me of another statement by Hornbey (also linked by Kottke, incidentally):
But I do not wish to produce prose that draws attention to itself, rather than the world it describes, and I certainly don’t have the patience to read it.
It seems to me that, insofar as art is commincating something, it ought to be transparent and this takes calculation regardless of medium.
The muse may push the artist to act, but the act is governed by great calculation and patience. Mostly.
Incidentally, do either of you (or anyone else) know of some good resources to look at regarding the camera direction/directorial decision question?
I’m sure Mark will have some suggestions for books and such. I think looking is a good place to start. Looking at great photographs, paintings, films, etc. When I first started thinking about this I asked Barry Stone if he would send me a list of photographers he admired. I think looking at stuff that makes an impact on you visually becomes a sub-conscious process that leads to decisions being made.
That makes sense. It is the same reason I have, in the past two years, begun studying Joyce, Fitzgerald, Eliot and Pound. I want to write like they could.
Regarding visual media, Whit Stillman’s films seem to be under appreciated. I recently saw Barcelona again and, bloody hell, it’s good.
Beg borrow and steal.