Jump to content

editing


Justin Hayward

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

I just watched an editing show on ENCORE. For some reason, I?m not impressed. I watched an interview with Martin Scorsese the other day and was blown away. He said things that were so insightful and informative. With editing, my reaction is mostly, ?yeah, no s%@t!?. I don?t mean to say I don?t appreciate editors, but is there anything more they can contribute than objectivity? (Which I do believe is very important, but really, my grandmother can provide objectivity.) One guy said he?s bought actors in to watch the cut and they said ?great you used take five?. The editor said ?no, actually I used a bit of take three, five, and some of take eight! The actor didn?t even know!? Wow! Brilliant! You used different takes! What a shock!

 

I?ve done plenty of editing and I?m particularly aware of the editors contributions, but ultimately, isn?t it the filmmaker that provides the editor with their material?

 

I promise, I?m not trying to bag on editors. I just think editing is mostly common sense. If something doesn?t work? change it. That?s pretty much it. Things are always going to change, no matter how brilliant the storyboards are. But when an editor pontificates about how beautifully they cut a scene, I wonder why the director or DoP aren?t credited for providing the editor?s profound work. When this or that angle was shot and used in the film, wasn?t it intended to be in the film? I mean, they shot it, right?

 

Honestly, I think editing can be easy. You learn the basics and everything else is common sense.

 

No offense to all the editors on this site. It?s just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the director and DP should know enough about the film that they probably could get it to a reasonable fine cut if they were so inclined. Pro editors are good at the beats and timing of cuts. I really believe one or two frames either way can make a big difference. Sometimes they do come up with something you never thought about if they are allowed to play with the story progression.

 

I think Clint Eastwood spent two weeks with his editor cutting the rain scene in "Bridges of Madison County." Fairly short scene but the editing is so delicate and tender the acting just flows out like a liquid emotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

?I really believe one or two frames either way can make a big difference.?

 

Agreed. I remember cutting my thesis in film school on a Steinbeck. Sometimes I?d trim and add back frames so often on one cut, it got to the point I couldn?t see the edit played back there was so much tape on the film.

 

However, anybody who?s ever cut anything knows that one or two frames make a difference. I guess that?s why I got a little annoyed last night. I was exited to watch this show, but all I got was two hours of editor problems and solutions that anybody who has ever cut anything already knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I?ve done plenty of editing and I?m particularly aware of the editors contributions, but ultimately, isn?t it the filmmaker that provides the editor with their material?

On a feature, an editor worth his or her salt can seriously alter what does and doesn't get shot, from inserts all the way up to complete sequences. Editors will also help break down scenes with major coverage with the director when asked - as I have been. Editors will also shoot second unit. Not to mention driving the post-production creatively, from music to the sound mix.

 

Not every situation is like this, but it would be foolhardy to assume an editor's work begins and ends at the cutting room door.

 

Saul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is complete rubbish! Editing sets the tone and pace for the film, and creates all the gentle subtleties that can really make a film. Watch a film like Schindler's List and you will see how powerful the editing is. From the opening scene of Schindler fixing himself to the scene where the kid jumps into the latrine. Check out a Hitchcock film...suspense and horror genres are all about editing.

 

Give 10 editors a film, and you will have 10 different films! Think about it, you have a master shot plus coverage from about 4 or 5 different angles, plus 4 or 5 inserts...the scene is about a woman who just revealed to her husband that she's in love with someone else. How do you go with it? Do you leave it on her face to create the sense of intimacy? Do you keep it on the wide shot for the distancing effect?...do you cut to the photograph of the kids as she reveals this information?...do you stay on her the whole time, or do we cut to him as she reveals the information? Maybe we stay on him and just hear her?!

 

:blink:

Edited by DavidSloan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Editing is just as important an artform as cinematography. It's the "music" of the film. It can manipulate Time. In some ways, it's one of the most uniquely cinematic of all the arts that go into the making of a movie. The juxtuposition of separate moving images into montage doesn't really have its equivalent in other art forms.

 

Just look at some of the greatest pieces of editing of all time, like the diving sequence in "Olympiad", the shower scene in "Psycho", one of the shark attacks on the boat in "Jaws", the helicopter attack in "Apocalypse Now", etc. Or just read some of Walter Murch's books on the subject.

 

Think about the jump cut from the falling bone to the spaceship in "2001"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I just think editing is mostly common sense.  If something doesn?t work? change it.  That?s pretty much it. 

 

Change it to what? The editor has to have a clue what to do instead. Otherwise that's kind of like saying "cinematography is common sense -- if the lighting doesn't work, change it." You do change it, but you have to have an idea what will work to give you what you want.

 

I wonder why the director or DoP aren?t credited for providing the editor?s profound work.  When this or that angle was shot and used in the film, wasn?t it intended to be in the film?  I mean, they shot it, right? 

 

I think given the chance, most editors DO credit the director, DP and the actors for providing them material they can work with. Try listening to the editor's commentary track on the Seven DVD. Also sometimes an editor will rearrange shots or scenes beyond what was intended on set, changing the rhythm, tone, and meaning of the scene or the whole film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Frank Gossimier

Justin...you have got to be kidding me and all of us here?

 

In my opinion the editor is "the guy". He can make or break a film so easily.

 

The problem editors have is that when their work is the very very best no one notices it! Because it's so good and so seamless.

 

((Oh no offense to Verna Fields who saved Jaws from the clutches of well...Jaws. It's just that if you watch film credits you very rarely see a woman as the editor.))

 

My favorite way to shoot a film is to cover every angle possible and then "direct" the film in post. By doing this I can manipulate the scenes dozens ways and have so many options. Now I know many disagree with this approach to filmmaking, but I like it.

 

It always makes me laugh when they hand out the Oscar for best film editing every year. They start by showing a montage of shots from a variety of movies!! This of course is the WORST way to demonstrate editing. To show great editing you have to let an entire scene play out so that one can see how all the shots flow together.

 

BUT, problem is the producers of the Academy Awards know that the viewers at home will not understand at all what is being demonstrated. Like I said, when it's done very well it takes a trained eye to understand how good it is.

 

Editors really are the un-sung heros of filmmaking. When their great, no one can tell they are great.

 

Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
My favorite way to shoot a film is to cover every angle possible and then "direct" the film in post.  By doing this I can manipulate the scenes dozens ways and have so many options.  Now I know many disagree with this approach to filmmaking, but I like it.

 

 

Whatever works for you. This approached worked for George Stevens afterall.

 

My feeling is that it should be more musical in that it's nice to alternate "cutty" scenes with flowing scenes with little coverage if any. You can see this principle at work in Kurosawa's and Spielberg's films.

 

Also, in terms of low-budget filmmaking, I think it's not very efficient to shoot a lot of coverage because you tend to compromise lighting in order to shoot that much per day, plus burn a lot of film stock (if shooting film.) You might even get to do fewer takes per set-up if you have to shoot more set-ups per day. I tend to believe you grow more and faster as an artist if you make bold choices and suffer the consequences of being wrong rather than cover your ass too much. The trouble with shooting a lot of coverage is that you tend to use the coverage just because you have it. I'm a little more of the Hitchcock school of pre-visualizing a scene and covering it just enough to give you the flexibility to make adjustments to the tempo of the scene later in editing, i.e. overlap the action in the set-ups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

"Honestly, I think editing can be easy. You learn the basics and everything else is common sense."

 

I found your post both insulting and incredibly naive. Just because you can shoot a wedding video doesn't mean you can shoot a feature, the same aplies to editing. Recently NLE's have become cheap and simpler to use and now anyone can edit (as have video cameras, does that make my mum a DP?), but after editing proffesionally for eight years i can honestly say that I am only just feeling that i am a capable editor. This is the difference. You also have no idea how many films are saved in the edit. Yes, if you have perfect rushes and a solid storyboard you can just cut everything together, but the interesting thing is that even if you have this priveledge you often realise that what you thought you needed and shot is not actually a finished film in the edit. Then its either reshoot time or the editor has to work out a way of rebuilding the footage into a story. usually in my experience the director just doesn't have enough time or money or experience to get everything they need, in this case a gifted artistic editor will make the film.

 

I could give you a list of films that were in pieces before skilled editors saved them, but i wont through professional respect.

 

Respect that you seem to lack for your fellow workers.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I was exited to watch this show, but all I got was two hours of editor problems and solutions that anybody who has ever cut anything already knows.

This being a cable TV show for the general public, it's likely that the producers and director started with the assumption that the audience would be people who have never cut anything. So they started from the beginning and covered the basics.

 

Or it could be that they had a lot of great stuff, but the editor decided to cut it out. ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

I find that TV programmes on filmmaking are generally very uninteresting, because quite understandably they're pitched at the inexperienced. Fine, great, no problem with that, but then I'd probably expect exactly the experience you got out of it. The points they covered were things anyone who'd cut anything would know precisely because most people have never cut anything.

 

Almost everything's at this level, making DVD BTS docos into almost nothnig more than an exercise in equipment spotting. Interview with the star, shot of the camera whizzing around on a technocrane, interviews with the star, shot of the director, interviews with the star, insert of the slate closing. Yawn.

 

Even most DVD commentaries are dull to this level. Talk about the stars, talk about an amusing accident, talk about the stars, moan about the location, talk about the stars...

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite way to shoot a film is to cover every angle possible and then "direct" the film in post.  By doing this I can manipulate the scenes dozens ways and have so many options. 

 

I have trouble even considering that directing.

 

For me that feels like shooting a music video, and a film like that is usually cut somewhat like the format. You have options to cut, but composition and mood can also suffer.

 

A film i shot a couple of years ago. Right after the climax of the film, a woman has gone through a process of freeing herself of a relationship with a selfish man. They confront each other. The director and I decided to compact it into a dolly shot.

 

The man sits on a couch near a large window, she stands in the middle of the room facing him. I have two 1200 ArriSun Pars flooding sunlight through the window on to him, with her back lit against the window. A Pocket par providing slight illumination on her face.

 

The dolly starts next to her camera facing him sitting on the couch, we dolly right looking at him on the couch staring at her. The dolly arcs around until they are both in frame, him to the right, her to the left. I felt this shot gave the audience an opportunity to absorb what has happened in the previous scene, and a moment of mystery as to what will be the man's reaction. So there is sometime to releave the previous tension and a moment to build tension for the next event. He slowly and quietly stands and walks to her, he says a few lines and leaves.

 

We did that in one shot. It said a lot in a simple moment. I liked it that way, but the editor didn't. She complained about not having anything to cut against, and that the shot was too long. Of course shots these days shots aren't allowed to last longer than 1.5 seconds, this shot lasted for about 15 seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

?I found your post both insulting and incredibly naive. Just because you can shoot a wedding video doesn't mean you can shoot a feature, the same aplies to editing.?

 

Sorry, Keith. I should be more careful about posting something that might be insulting. On the list of things that annoy me, the television program I watched is on par with standing in line behind an old lady with lots of coupons at the grocery store. Honestly, I meant no offense (and I also don?t mean to offend any old ladies with lots of coupons at the grocery store).

 

I forgot all about this thread. Last time I checked, there was only one reply. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...