Elephant

[Landon D. Parks]

I seen in the making of "Elephant" that it looked to me Gus actually edited the thing the old way. you know, cut the negative, splice it, ect.

 

Did he really edit the entire film this?

 

Why didnt he use a computer?

 

PS) I must admit, it looked kind of fun. :rolleyes:

[Patrick Neary]

could very well be, I mean there were only like 9 cuts in the entire film, weren't there?

 

I wonder if there are still a couple editors out there who won't give up their clackity old moviolas?

[David Mullen ASC]

Almost ALL theatrical films cut the negative, splice it, and make prints, IP's, etc.

 

You're talking about making a workprint off of the negative and cutting that on a flatbed or Moviola... as opposed to editing a video transfer in a computer in order to create an EDL -- after which you cut the negative, splice it, make prints, etc.

 

There are a few people who only edit workprint, or only switched to computer editing on their last few features. The Coen Brothers, Spielberg, Scorsese, etc. all until recently only cut on film.

 

As pointed out, since "Elephant" only has a few cuts in it, there isn't much advantage to computer editing other than saving the costs of workprinting, and on the other hand, they probably saved the costs of video dailies.

[Sam Wells]

Reading (in connection with Oscars & The Aviator) Thelma Schoonmaker cuts on Lightworks, which is definitely more "Steenbeck - like" than Avid or FCP.....

 

-Sam

[David Mullen ASC]

Reading (in connection with Oscars & The Aviator) Thelma Schoonmaker cuts on Lightworks, which is definitely more "Steenbeck - like" than Avid or FCP.....

 

-Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I believe that was their (Scorsese & Schoonmaker) first film cut digitally though, partly because it was shot in 3-perf with the idea of doing a D.I.

[Landon D. Parks]

You're talking about making a workprint off of the negative and cutting that on a flatbed or Moviola... as opposed to editing a video transfer in a computer in order to create an EDL -- after which you cut the negative, splice it, make prints, etc.

Exactly. I know that, from what I hear most people edit on the computer, send the EDL to the cutter to cut the film. I just thinks its kind of weird to actually skip the computer step, it has to be easier than cutting the film on a flatbed... Even if there is only 9 cuts.

 

PS) Thats one thing that bugs me about this film, the scenes are too long. One scene tends to last minutes. Gets on my nerve's a bit actually. And the shallow depth of field! Its just a bit to much. If this type of film is what wins you the Palme D' or then Cannes Is not as great of a fest as I thought. Sorry to those who disagree. :unsure:

 

I think I fell alseep a few time even...

Edited March 3, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Guest Trevor Swaim]

Exactly. I know that, from what I hear most people edit on the computer, send the EDL to the cutter to cut the film. I just thinks its kind of weird to actually skip the computer step, it has to be easier than cutting the film on a flatbed... Even if there is only 9 cuts.

 

PS) Thats one thing that bugs me about this film, the scenes are too long. One scene tends to last minutes. Gets  on my nerve's a bit actually. And the shallow depth of field! Its just a bit to much. If this type of film is what wins you the Palme D' or then Cannes Is not as great of a fest as I thought. Sorry to those who disagree.  :unsure:

 

I think I fell alseep a few time even...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

didn't you also say that chris columbus is your idol? and his harry potter films are the type of films that you would like to make. :rolleyes:

[Landon D. Parks]

yes, Chris is the man, and harry potter rocks. I dont know about him being my idol though. I just like his films. Everyone hes made I have enjoyed. Thats more then I can say for most directors...

Edited March 3, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Sam Wells]

I think "Casino" was actually their first.

 

-Sam

[Shawn Mielke]

It's funny. The long takes are what kept my interest in this film. I love the pace and structure and look of this film.

[Sam Wells]

It's funny. The long takes are what kept my interest in this film. I love the pace and structure and look of this film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Me too.

 

Also, I didn't have any 'issues' with the depth of field. Honestly I don't remember thinking about it too much; whatever Harris Savides and Gus Van Z did felt right to me....

 

ps Note to David M - I read the Millimeter article; I suspect what's different here is that for the first time they didn't print film dailies.

 

-Sam

[Max Jacoby]

PS) Thats one thing that bugs me about this film, the scenes are too long. One scene tends to last minutes. Gets on my nerve's a bit actually. And the shallow depth of field! Its just a bit to much. If this type of film is what wins you the Palme D' or then Cannes Is not as great of a fest as I thought. Sorry to those who disagree. 

 

To be honest you're not yet mature enough to appreciate a film like 'Elephant' which in its form is closer to contemporary art than movies. If you thought 'Elephant' was boring, try watching some Tarkovsky films, like 'Andrey Rublev' or Stalker'. I bet you'll fall asleep...

[Josh Hill]

I thought Elephant was wonderful. It's sad that television and movies are shortening our attention spans bit by bit with their flashy cuts and action beats.

 

In Screenwriting (a class that I will not take here for this reason) at UT it is apparently taboo for a character to speak more than two sentences at a time. God forbid anyone want to actually SAY something in a movie.

 

I noticed that, since I stopped watching television, my attention span and ability to concentrate has gotten longer and longer.

[Matt Pacini]

Two sentences, eh?

Wow, that's funny.

 

That's like all these script "formula" books, that tell you NEVER have more than 4 lines of dialog.

Then you get your hands on every great script ever written, and they all break those rules.

 

It would be funny to take one of those classes, then when the instructor expounds on one of these "laws", pipe up and say something like "so American Beauty is crap?" or some other terrific film that breaks these "laws", which almost every good script does.

 

Oh no, I just broke the two sentence law...

 

Matt Pacini

[Landon D. Parks]

To be honest you're not yet mature enough to appreciate a film like 'Elephant'

I never said I didn't like it. I thought it was a "Good" film. It's just not the type of film I could fall in love with. I "Like" films like this every once in a while, and I thought this film was good for its style. I'm just not a fan of the slow pace of the film.

 

Sorry, Maybee I am not mature enough yet to know what this film offers, but I just can't seem to love a film like this at this point in my life.

[Dominic Case]

Then you get your hands on every great script ever written, and they all break those rules.

Sorry to trot out a tired old response but this is true.

 

Before you can break the rules you must first learn to follow them. Then you will see why they are set up as rules. Then you will see what impact you can achieve by breaking them -as well as when you can get away with it.

 

If you get your hands on some really bad scripts you will find that they break all the rules too.

[Mark Allen]

edited the thing the old way. PS) I must admit, it looked kind of fun.  :rolleyes:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

All I can say about the old way of editing (which I'm sadly old enough to have done) is that there is a strange and dark irony that you would have a box of razor blades handy in the room.

[Landon D. Parks]

is that there is a strange and dark irony that you would have a box of razor blades handy in the room.

:blink: :ph34r:

[Rachel Oliver]

:blink:  :ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi;

 

Ie Landon, it's such a lonely and monotonous process one might actually extinguish one's self! As in Claret would be spilled, as in the light would be let in via the wrist,

 

I've chopped up many 16mm work prints on Steenbecks, I'm sure it made my brain work differently than a computer but I've become so soft I don't think I could take it anymore.

 

Olly

[Sam Wells]

I thought Elephant was wonderful. It's sad that television and movies are shortening our attention spans bit by bit with their flashy cuts and action beats.

 

In Screenwriting (a class that I will not take here for this reason) at UT it is apparently taboo for a character to speak more than two sentences at a time. God forbid anyone want to actually SAY something in a movie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

OTOH I love the minimal dialog - and Sissy Spacek's vo monologue - in "Badlands"

 

no, it's not flashy cuts and action beats in that film !

 

-Sam

[Sam Wells]

At the end of the day, editing is about structure. Either you can do this or you can't.

 

-Sam

[Boone Hudgins]

I think "Casino" was actually their first.

 

-Sam

It was.

[Sam Wells]

I should have bet on it B)

 

-Sam

[Saul Pincus]

Two sentences, eh?

Wow, that's funny.

 

That's like all these script "formula" books, that tell you NEVER have more than 4 lines of dialog.

Then you get your hands on every great script ever written, and they all break those rules.

 

It would be funny to take one of those classes, then when the instructor expounds on one of these "laws", pipe up and say something like "so American Beauty is crap?" or some other terrific film that breaks these "laws", which almost every good script does.

 

Oh no, I just broke the two sentence law...

 

Matt Pacini

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Beat" cutting is common in television, as many television producers come from writing. Intentionally or subconsciously, television shows driven by writer/producers tend to build visual beats in symmetry with script beats.

 

Saul.

[Saul Pincus]

Hi;

 

Ie Landon, it's such a lonely and monotonous process one might actually extinguish one's self! As in Claret would be spilled, as in the light would be let in via the wrist,

 

I've chopped up many 16mm work prints on Steenbecks, I'm sure it made my brain work differently than a computer but I've become so soft I don't think I could take it anymore.

 

Olly

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the biggest change since computer-based non-linear editing arrived isn't so much the speed (though that's a big one) but the fact that the process itself became socialized. Prior to this, the cutting room was really the domain of the dedicated few (director, editor, assistants) whose job it was to deliver a real movie to the outside world (producers, exec producers, studio executives and/or investors), but it wasn't necessarity considered by those "outsiders" to be a cool place to hang out.

 

By comparison, the reality of today's cutting room is akin to a coffee shop. And because it's such a quiet, thoughtful art that increasingly requires less and less specialized gear and can be done virtually anywhere you can park your laptop, the mystery - and some of the respect - has also vanished. The speed offered by the technology creates the kind of access that creates a sense of pressure more akin to the shooting process. In reality, editing is more like writing, and since the writer is often given time alone to think, why has it become such an imposition to expect the same for the editor?

 

(Apologies for the rant.)

 

Saul.

Edited March 16, 2005 by Saul Pincus