Jump to content

Cutting on Movement


Doug Palmer

Recommended Posts

When cutting together two shots of a fast action, say a man chopping wood etc, my usual method is to find a suitable matching frame in both shots and use that as the cutting point. But I've just been reading Michael Rabiger's 1989 book "Directing, Film Techniques and Aesthetics" and he says you should repeat the action on the next shot for 2 or even 3 frames.... "since the eye does not register the first 2 or 3 frames of any new image."

 

I find this fact rather hard to swallow. I feel as if I've always not needed those extra overlapping frames. But on the other hand maybe I've only found the cut acceptable due to the very fact that I am 'expecting' the subsequent shot and not seeing the film with the fresh eyes of an audience. And it's not exactly an easy one to ask a viewer.

 

I'd really like to hear what you think. Should the action be repeated to this extent ? :wacko:

Or does it vary according to the size of screen etc.

 

Doug

http://www.filmisfine.co

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I don't think that every time there is a cut the viewer misses the first few frames. Generally you'd match action to make a seamless cut on motion but obviously you can play with time, probably a viewer wouldn't notice if you backed up a few frames, repeating part of the motion. I've also seen movies where they removed a few frames to speed up the motion like when someone throws a punch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that David. Interesting !

I wonder maybe as years go people have changed the way they view actions in films.... such as accepting the removal of those frames during the punch. Also I can see that something like an explosion or gunshot most likely needs backing up in the subsequent shot. But a human arm action or sudden turn of the head would surely look wrong if repeated ? Not allowing for viewer's eyes blinking <_< though.

Then again I was pondering how the size of screen must affect how action in general should be cut together. For example, one's eyes trying to digest an Imax action-scene versus TV, and all the formats in between. The whole thing to me seems like a compromise. Has anyone come up with a formula.

 

Doug

http://www.filmisfine.co

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Speaking as one of the least experienced on the board here, I would nonetheless caution you about looking for a formula. The mind is more complicated than that, thank goodness, as is life in general. Such thoughtful editors as Walter Murch have spoken about remaking a cut repeatedly to decide exactly which frame (on both sides) is the right place in a given instance. The rhythm the development, the content of the images, and other factors, all play a part in the editor's choice.

 

While cutting of frames of a film involve an inherently "mechanical" aspect, thinking of musical performance may be helpful. In Classical music, for example, in which there this an idea being presented by the composer, often as an initially stated musical irony or conundrum that is resolved in the course of the piece's development, the performance requires innumerable decisions in order to faithfully convey the composer's intention, but none of these can be formulaic. Of course, each musical performance will be slightly different anyway, unlike the screening of a film. But the principle of fine-tuning a moment in a process of development of an idea can never be reduced to a formula. Ansel Adams, who was a professionally accomplished pianist, for the same reason liked to refer to the negative as the score, the print as the performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

When cutting together two shots of a fast action, say a man chopping wood etc...

 

Repetitive actions like these require special treatment because although the eye may miss the first 1 or 2 or 3 frames, we have a special sensitivity to rhythm, which means that if you repeat a few frames (or delete them for that matter), the timing of the rhythm will be off. This will be especially nocticeable when there are sound effects accompanying the action (in your example, the "chop" spot effect with each stroke of the axe).

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

When you cut and join you do something to the spectator. Each butt joint is a harsh change of space and time. It was an impossibility when cinema began.

 

Philip is so right. Cuts may be tried out until the decision is on the single frame. I always try to keep my mind on the general plane as an editor. What is being told or simply shown? Who is telling and why and to whom? Your example of “a man chopping wood etc.” is too particular, you are on the physiological plane. Lean back and contemplate that cut as one of all. Now you understand that it is about taking the spectators by the hand to lead them through time. Film is a time thing (let me avoid the word art) like the theatre plus it is a space thing. So the chopping man will jump closer or farther upon your cut. One can as well say we will jump to and fro on every cut. Jump cut is exactly the proper term.

 

We have gotten used to this jumping but that doesn’t mean that cinematic things need to be presented that way. On the contrary, the most intriguing things I have seen on a screen were organized as uninterrupted takes. In other words, the whole production must be so structured that editing will become a finishing. It can be maddening when one has to put something together out of wild shots. Sometimes an editor works wonders but chaotic shooting almost always shows.

Edited by Simon Wyss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I always found that while cutting on movement, offset the audio cut if possible. I've found it makes a much smoother transition between the two visual images. Never underestimate how audio can affect the visual aspect of the cut. It's amazing how much a 3 frame audio crossfade can improve a visual cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

I LOVE cutting on motion! Or simply using the same motion, be it left to right, up to down, pan ins, pan outs or whta have you, i love when 2 shots seem like they just belong together, see what I mean in the Link, i mean i think i certainly use them more then most, but i feel like the result is amazing. TIP: ALWAYS SCORE YOUR WORK. These things end up working much better with accompanying sound fx

 

Video link: http://www.freshfinishmedia.com/canadian-filmmaker-washington-election/

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...