Type in the word "editing" in the Xixax search engine and you get over 300 results. Try "editing theory" or anything remotely related, and you don't even come close. So apologies if this has been discussed before. I haven't a clue where to look. And this could go any number of places too, but it does have to do with "Everything Else Cinema," because cinema is nothing without editing, and all the best discussions tend to happen here.
If I'm not mistaken, it was Stanley Kubrick who noted that film is different from all other mediums because of one technique that sets it apart: editing. I stand to be corrected. No other medium has this, as a combination of manipulating both pictures and sound. Another person (not sure who; I'm hoping someone will refresh my memory) theorized that it's best to start a scene after it's begun, and end it before the natural finish.
I guess what I'm getting at with this thread is I'm interested in hearing other people's theories and philosophies on editing. What really bugs me about mainstream films is there are certain things you can sense about a film that indicate where they're going. I'm trying to remember the last film I saw where the editing really struck me, and it's not Festen, though that's the one that comes to mind now. More on that later.
Lots of films these days (and of days past, too), though, have crummy instrumental scores that try to manipulate your emotions and tell you how to feel, dialogue as exposition, dialogue that you would never hear in real life ("Can I ask you a question?" -- normally people just come right out and ask the fucking question, but that's beside the point), problems a character (protagonist) has in the first act that he will struggle with in the second act and triumphantly overcome in the third act. Cookie cutter shit. I hate watching a film and knowing -- or at least being able to hazard a guess at -- exactly where it's going. I love when I'm surprised. This has a lot to do with (bad) writing, yes, mass-production, what I call a "sitcom-as-film syndrome" or the "90-minute sitcom," and test audiences. But an immense amount of this has to do with the editing. If it's too smooth it feels polished and overly-processed. If it's too ragged, it feels amateurish. Where's the balance?
Think of a film like Festen (The Celebration). I've only seen certain parts of it, but after that, I want to see the whole thing, and as many Dogme 95 films as I can. I know it all seems gimmicky, and I see both sides of the arguments of the merits and validity of Dogme 95, but still, I'm drawn to it because of those films' style. This has a lot to do with the use of DV, yes, but also with the editing. There are many different styles of editing which one can almost think of as different dialects of film language.
So what I wanted to get at is, are there any little mental notes you'd like to share about editing that makes any work you have done, or will do, or have seen stand out? Is there anything you do or can think of that's unique? I'm not talking about films such as Requiem for a Dream and Memento with the fast MTV-style montage stuff. Been there, done that. I'm sure there are some of you who know what I'm trying to get at, though. Anything at all about editing would be helpful to everyone, I'm sure. And cut. (I realize I deserve to be flogged for that one, but I couldn't resist. :-D)
i was talking w/ someone the other day about the surprising abundance of female editors. is it me or are they're a lot of them? and most of them are good!
for example, i took another look at Unfaithful the other day, and noticed it was edited by the very talented Anne V. Coates, whose credits include:
Unfaithful (2002)
Sweet November (2001)
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Passion of Mind (2000)
Out of Sight (1998)
Out to Sea (1997)
Striptease (1996)
Congo (1995)
Pontiac Moon (1994)
In the Line of Fire (1993)
Chaplin (1992)
What About Bob? (1991)
I Love You to Death (1990)
Listen to Me (1989)
Farewell to the King (1989)
Masters of the Universe (1987)
Raw Deal (1986)
Lady Jane (1986)
Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes (1984)
Pirates of Penzance, The (1983)
Ragtime (1981)
Elephant Man, The (1980)
Bushido Blade, The (1979)
Legacy, The (1978)
Eagle Has Landed, The (1976)
Aces High (1976)
Man Friday (1975)
Murder on the Orient Express (1974)
11 Harrowhouse (1974)
Adventurers, The (1970)
Great Catherine (1968)
Hotel Paradiso (1966)
Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines, or How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 hours 11 minutes (1965)
Young Cassidy (1965)
Becket (1964)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Don't Bother to Knock (1961)
Tunes of Glory (1960)
Horse's Mouth, The (1958)
Truth About Women, The (1958)
Lost (1955)
To Paris with Love (1955)
Forbidden Cargo (1954)
Grand National Night (1954)
Pickwick Papers, The (1952)
well, they're not all winners, but i think lawrence of arabia takes the cake. so what i'm trying to get at here is that chicks make good editors, and if i ever get to make a movie i'm going to get a lady to edit it.
COuld it be? Is there someone else who shares my pet peeve about overbearing scores?
Eisenstein is one of the earliest to theorize about editing... if I have time someday soon, I'll try to post a bit about it here. First introduced to it by a little film called From the Journals of Jean Seberg.
great post, Ono.
i can't articulate very well how i feel torwards editing , but here are some of my recent favorites, in that aspect
Kill Bill
Dogville
City of God
Punch Drunk Love
JFK
Another great female editor is Dede Allen(sp?)
let's not forget Thelma Schoonmaker
and one of the best male editors, Walter Murch.
His "conversations" book is definitely a must read for intelligent and articulate discussions about editing theories, among other things.
susan morse, who did most woody allen's movies before they turned bad.
Indeed, editing is perhaps the most important aspect of making a good film.
There are quite a few editing styles that can be distinguished.
My proposals for differenciation:
dialectical editing: editing that builds up a climax. It is dialectical: it carries the film and opposes antagonistic features that converge into a higher, purer, or let's say a more stable harmony. example: Battleship Potemkin
conservative editing: editing that forms harmony within the process of editing. There is no converging to a higher level. Harmony is given, harmony must be preserved. example: Triumph of the Will
expressive editing: there is no harmony that must be preserved or created. It often expresses the director's/editor's standpoint. example: A bout the souffle
narrative editing: The editing follows the film. This is the most "classical" approach. example: lots of them, so to say.
Feel free to criticize. :)
Verna Fields is another great female editor, of course Jaws was her last film, and Sarah Flack cut The Limey which is an amazing achievement.
Anyone seen the editing demo on Traffic Criterion Collection. An Avid timeline plays down a scene with each revision as Stephen Mirrione talks you through. Fucking excellent.
Quote from: kelvinIndeed, editing is perhaps the most important aspect of making a good film.
There are quite a few editing styles that can be distinguished.
My proposals for differenciation:
dialectical editing: editing that builds up a climax. It is dialectical: it carries the film and opposes antagonistic features that converge into a higher, purer, or let's say a more stable harmony. example: Battleship Potemkin
conservative editing: editing that forms harmony within the process of editing. There is no converging to a higher level. Harmony is given, harmony must be preserved. example: Triumph of the Will
expressive editing: there is no harmony that must be preserved or created. It often expresses the director's/editor's standpoint. example: A bout the souffle
narrative editing: The editing follows the film. This is the most "classical" approach. example: lots of them, so to say.
Feel free to criticize. :)
awesome post, and I feel we could take this and run, to great tangental discussions.
I think I'm very much a conservative-narrative hybrid, and would like to drop that narrative bit, and be more expressive...
As a side note: how many of you who make films run into that "editing to fix mistakes" problem? I find most of my editing right now consists of firstly cutting through all my takes to pick the least bad bits of performance and camerawork (thus, editing to fix mistakes), and then mainly concentrating on rhythm. I find that I can never get into the level of really inter-relating images, to take myself to a new level, and when I try that, I of course start leaving the story behind, and dropping the sense factor, to which it just looks like pretentious beat-off stuff, and that never serves the story...
there's an early scene in the movie insomnia when i believe someone is getting off of a plane, and it's a very short scene, but theres a cut almost every second, and it annoyed the hell out of me.....
i'm surprised with how much we all love PTA that dylan tichenor hasn't been mentioned.......
its cool to think about certain directors and i think how much respect they have for the editing process. people like scorsese, robert altman, pta, wes anderson, they all shoot with post-production in mind. people like michael bay, for instance, seem to shoot a mass amount of shit and rely on the editor to make it presentable. thus resulting in an average shot time of about 2 seconds for your ordinary bay movie.
I don't notice editing much in films, except for obvious structurally innovative editing such as in Pulp Fiction or Memento or isolated moments of catchy editing. It is easy for me to notice bad editing because good editing is invisible to me, but I can usually tell when a director has thought about the editing of a film like Hitchcock did.
I learned a few things by making mistakes that look like crap and from input by others, which was how I learned about L-cuts.
Quote from: godardian
COuld it be? Is there someone else who shares my pet peeve about overbearing scores?
I don't like overbearing scores either. While watching a movie I often imagine what a scene would be like without music. Scoring can enhance the mood of a scene or it can be redundant. Sometimes emotions need to be underlined by the score rather than being presented in a matter-of-fact fashion without music.
Quote from: cbradis it me or are they're a lot of them?
i'm reading a book on editing right now that says editors were mostly women all the way back to the soundless days because it was considered a women's job since it had these aspects of organizing and knitting together film..
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaAnother person (not sure who; I'm hoping someone will refresh my memory) theorized that it's best to start a scene after it's begun, and end it before the natural finish.
I believe it was David Mamet, not sure what book it was from. The On Directing Film book I think...
I've directed and edited two shorts, and edited one more.
My first film had to be MOS which was wonderful, because I learned all about visual storytelling. This process forces you to think about editing before you shoot, because all you have to tell the story is the juxtaposistion of images. That experiance made my second film (which was dialogue heavy) much easier to cut.
Sonowthen,
If you want to tinker with more expressive editing without compromising story, try to find places in the script that would benifit from a montage (transitional or to cover lots of exposistion quickly).
I ran into an exposistion problem with my second film, and found that a montage allowed me to explain lots of back story in a visually expressive way.
I think editing might be my favorite part of the process.
Quote from: godardianCOuld it be? Is there someone else who shares my pet peeve about overbearing scores?
that is why Brazil sucked.
Quote from: nixI think editing might be my favorite part of the process.
Me too. And didn't Kubrick say that once? It's amazing how much you can be surprised when editing.
Editing is really when you decide how brave you're going to be, because you can see so many insane possibilities right in front of you, there for you to take. Editing on impulse can be liberating. Or disasterous.
Quote from: SoNowThenI find that I can never get into the level of really inter-relating images, to take myself to a new level, and when I try that, I of course start leaving the story behind, and dropping the sense factor, to which it just looks like pretentious beat-off stuff, and that never serves the story...
... or does it? Try making a documentary or mockumentary, entirely unscripted and spontaneous, without relying on dialogue or story. I think that's the best way to develop expressiveness and/or abstractness.
Quote from: godardianIs there someone else who shares my pet peeve about overbearing scores?
Classic example... LOTR: FOTR.
Another female editor of note is Marcia Lucas, George Lucas' ex-wife. She co-edited Taxi Driver, which is an achievement of note.
One of the top books about editing is by director Karel Reisz, and there's also Eisenstein's work about film theory.
Many directors say that their favorite part of the filmmaking process is editing.
I agree with Godardian about bombastic scores. I was watching On The Waterfront recently, and I actually muted the sound during the final confrontation between Brando and Lee J. Cobb, as the background score was too overbearing. Of course, sometimes bombastic symphonic scores are utterly appropriate -- such as in Star Wars or Gone With The Wind or anything by Bernard Herrman. Kubrick has done well using already existing classical pieces. It would be nice if other directors followed his lead.
It's hard for me to say I love editing more than any other part of the filmmaking process, nut I guess I really do, since that's what I specialize in and feel that I'm the most talented in. I love having massive amounts of raw footage to work through and cut down to the barest essence of a scene. Walter Murch has said that he likes to edit without using the script, to just let the movie develop on its own; that's what I try to do as well. I like it when a director is open to the idea of rewriting something in the editing room.
The aforementioend 'The Limey' is the first movie that always comes to my mind when I think of great editing; its heavily stylistic, but not in a show-offy way. Every cut is motivated by the story. Another one of my favorites is Graeme Clifford's work on 'Don't Look Now,' which is just fantastic. The love scene usually garners the most attention, but the entire thing is masterfully cut. And '21 Grams' is worth mentioning too -- it seems arbitrarily thrown together, but I think there was probably a great deal of though in every scene change and chronology break (although I could be completely wrong and the editing was accomplished by rearranging the order with a blindfold on).
(I will continue this conversation later...for now, I've gotta crash)
There is another medium that uses editing. In fact several. Most writing is usually edited. As well, most digitally recorded and mixed music is built out of editing.
Movies are nothing but dirty little whores.
Quote from: mutinycoThere is another medium that uses editing. In fact several. Most writing is usually edited. As well, most digitally recorded and mixed music is built out of editing.
Movies are nothing but dirty little whores.
Realize, though, that film's editing technique is unique because it involves juxtaposition of pictures and sound. It can play with time and space, which is what sets it apart. Something writing and audio alone can't do.
QuoteThere is another medium that uses editing. In fact several. Most writing is usually edited. As well, most digitally recorded and mixed music is built out of editing.
Movies are nothing but dirty little whores.
i think he's talking about this guy:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.herecomethewilddogs.com%2Fimages%2FArt%2FBurroughs.jpg&hash=f426b4807ccbf6a4cb4eafe0fe250df1a746c05c)
and if you're curious about how he did what he did :
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/gary.leeming/burroughs/cutup_machine.htm
Didn't he shoot his wife when he was on heroin?
He shot her. I'm not sure he was on junk when he did it though. Might've been drunk.
I've been struggling with the editing of The Tortellini Suicide for quite some time now, especially with one cut (or two, really). You have them here...
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.chello.se%2Fkotte%2Fshot.JPG&hash=ede787bcf3a4abcca61d669ea62056bbc76fd780)
The problem here is one of continuity, you could say. In shot no. 1 Viggo raises his glass, in shot no. 2 Gino enters and in shot no. 3 we're back on Viggo. In this particular sequence I've focused on the glass. What I have now is the height of the glass perfectly matched. But the loss is in Gino's entrance. To keep it matched I have to cut from no. back to 1 a bit too quickly.
I've started reading Walter Murch's 'In The Blink Of An Eye' in which he ranks the order of reasons where to cut. It goes like this.
1. Emotion
2. Story
3. Rhythm
4. Eye-trace
5. Two-dimensional plane of screen (180 degree rule, I assume)
6. Three-dimensional space of screen
What he says is that you should always work from the top down. Sacrifice Story before Emotion, Rhythm before Story, Eye-trace before Rhythm etc etc. What I've done here is the opposite of what he believes. I'm sacrificing Rhythm and Emotion before Three-dimensional space of screen (and no. 5. Let's face it, I'm kinda breaking the 1800 rulke with the cut's I'm talking about).
So if I go Murch's way there will be a noticeable error. I don't know how noticeable. I mean I see it everytime but I'm so wrapped up in the film.
I realize I'm kinda answering my own question here...
But how do you feel about all of this??
Is there anything else you could cut to? Like maybe a close up of Gino's entrance?
Sometimes restructuring the scene a little works.
I don't really know what to think because I don't exactly know what you have to work with. Continuity errors are gotten away with all the time, so that is the least important (as Murch said), unless it's truly jarring. Unless those are the only 3 shots you have for those cuts, I would try messing around with it in every way until you find something that works. It has to "feel" right, though. I think that's part of what Murch is saying--don't sacrifice what feels right just to be a slave to continuity.
Yeah, I agree...I don't wanna be a slave :)
The thing is, I don't know how bad the error is since I've been looking at these shots for almost 6 months now.
And I wish I had something else to cut to. I've done everything I can with what I have. So now I'm down to two options basically: Continuity or Rhythm?
Quote from: ©bradi was talking w/ someone the other day about the surprising abundance of female editors. is it me or are they're a lot of them? and most of them are good!
[List of movies omitted]
well, they're not all winners, but i think lawrence of arabia takes the cake. so what i'm trying to get at here is that chicks make good editors, and if i ever get to make a movie i'm going to get a lady to edit it.
sadly, the reason for this is that back in the early days of the studios the editor's job was marginalized. it was considered much like a factory position, like a seamstress or car assembler (actually a lot of positions were like this, i.e. screenwriters). almost sweatshop styles. Since it was seen as shit work they didn't mind giving it up to women. they would have all the cuts predetermined and the editor would cut on certain frames and assemble the strip. good thing though, when it became a creative medium, women held onto this position predominantly. still though, you look at the early percentage of women editors and you'll see it's much higher than todays figures.
-sl-
[edit] sorry overlooked picolas' post which pretty much says the same thing.
Just wanted to add...
Read Murch's 'In The Blink Of An Eye'!
It's great.Not only is it a book about editing from the master of the craft but close to a philosophical journey written by an old wise man. You need to read his theories about blinking. Awesome
I hope more people have comments or advice on my first post.
Quote from: wantautopia?Another person (not sure who; I'm hoping someone will refresh my memory) theorized that it's best to start a scene after it's begun, and end it before the natural finish.
i want to say that this is a technique reciteded by screenwriters not editors -- and sadly enough, I believe it is robert mckee who has preached this through and through.
Quote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: wantautopia?Another person (not sure who; I'm hoping someone will refresh my memory) theorized that it's best to start a scene after it's begun, and end it before the natural finish.
i want to say that this is a technique reciteded by screenwriters not editors -- and sadly enough, I believe it is robert mckee who has preached this through and through.
This was a technique of Ernest Hemingway's.
And Kotte, if shots 1 and 3 are part of the same shot, then maybe you don't have to cut to Gino? If they're different takes, though, then yeah you'll have to make some cut. I'd say cut for rhythm and ask someone you trust to just watch that little bit, especially somebody who doesn't know much about editing. Ask them afterwards if they noticed anything wrong with it. You can make your decision after that.
Sally Menke and Mary Sweeney are both great..
My editing comes from a musician's standpoint. I think of the editing points as the beats, and depending on the speed of the song that underplays the spirit of the script, there we will have different moments in the movie.
Whether or not music is playing, this theory works. Actually, when don't use music it frees up alot of natural timing and lets the visual overtake the audio. I'm sure alot of you know that already. I just think it's extra-cool.
& Keep up the good work, everybody.
In concurrence to Matt35mm's suggestion, my immediate reaction to those shots would be to excise shot number two and cut to it after the fellow has walked into frame; technically (and non-contextually), this creates a juxtapositional 'question' which would be answered, rather than a simple 'statement.'
But it's hard to say, not knowing the context and rhythm of the scene.
Here's a short clip of those two cuts, 11 seconds.
EDIT: I removed the clip...A 11 second clip won't make sense.
Hope you get a better sense of the scene.
My suggestion is a bit similar to Ghostboy's, I think (and matt35mms in a way). I'd wait until Viggo starts to put his glass down to cut to Gino. You have the shadow of him coming in the frame, and then he can finish what he's saying. Might be redundant, I don't know, more like an expansion.
If it is redundant, another option is a cutaway. Do you have some sort of footage of him coming in or something? Any other stuff you can use?
Yeah, after looking at that, I'd definitely say cut AFTER he's walked in. Maybe on the line of dialogue. Again, this may go against the rhythm of the REST of the film, but from this 11 seconds we've seen, that seems like the best option.
You should put the three shots online in their original entirety and hold a contest to see who can edit them together in the manner most pleasing to you.
Quote from: GhostboyYou should put the three shots online in their original entirety and hold a contest to see who can edit them together in the manner most pleasing to you.
That's actually a good idea. Here they are: Shot no. 1 (http://members.chello.se/kotte/shot1.mov) and Shot no. 2 (http://members.chello.se/kotte/shot2.mov).
How do I bring Gino in? See what you can do with the limited information given.
Do it well and a credit is yours.
It would be great help.
Quote from: kotteQuote from: GhostboyYou should put the three shots online in their original entirety and hold a contest to see who can edit them together in the manner most pleasing to you.
That's actually a good idea. Here they are: Shot no. 1 (http://members.chello.se/kotte/shot1.mov) and Shot no. 2 (http://members.chello.se/kotte/shot2.mov).
How do I bring Gino in? See what you can do with the limited information given.
Do it well and a credit is yours.
It would be great help.
How do I do this?
I'm assuming there's a program that I don't have.
Help me.
But, if I understood what GB's saying, since I didn't have the chance to see the last clip, then I would have edited it just like that.
I tried but can't post as I don't have webspace. I got a good result by cutting to the waiter when he asks "Is everthing to your satisfaction", and having the first part over the guy drinking.
I was thinking of:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg101.exs.cx%2Fimg101%2F7923%2Fedit1.jpg&hash=14f8106e5d23a43451d93861587b8a14061425e7)
Shot1:
Maître d' asks "...is everything to your satisfaction," the gentleman rests his glass on the table, looks up. (15secs in)
CUT TO:
Shot2:
The gentleman, looking up, glass is down, ready to respond. (9secs in)
I hope this helps.
I would do this (http://xixax.com/files/jb/kotte.mp4).
The last part of the one JB did is good, but one problem with it might be that it's a little bit too quick. The hiccup, the cut to the waiter coming in at 0:06-0:07 or so isn't needed. It disrupts the leisurely pace that would be much better to keep.
Mine is perfect. It wasn't complicated. The sound is smooth, the cuts are smooth, but I have no idea how to load it. I don't have my own space.
I'm pretty sure I came up with a good cut that's ready to use (without all this compression, of course).
Quote from: matt35mmbut I have no idea how to load it. I don't have my own space.
I'm pretty sure I came up with a good cut that's ready to use (without all this compression, of course).
Email it to me. (check your PMs)
Quote from: matt35mmMine is perfect. It wasn't complicated. The sound is smooth, the cuts are smooth
I didn't pay much attention to the audio... I figured it was just an example. I don't think we can share on the internet an actual DV file or something that's actually ready to use.
Quote from: wantautopia?The last part of the one JB did is good, but one problem with it might be that it's a little bit too quick. The hiccup, the cut to the waiter coming in at 0:06-0:07 or so isn't needed. It disrupts the leisurely pace that would be much better to keep.
I thought the frequent cuts and the odd entrance worked well for tension, especially with the last line. But kotte may not be going for that.
Here (http://xixax.com/files/matt35mmkotte.mov) is matt35mm's cut.
Yay! Thanks.
Kotte, this was fun. I hope the cut works for you.
EDIT: There's a slight humming in both shots, with it louder in the first shot, so when you cut from shot to shot, make sure that you're blending the sounds together in a way that won't draw attention to it. It'll be jarring otherwise everytime you cut. I've blended them together and it should sound fine, but I know you'll have to actually cut it for yourself as well, so keep that in mind if you haven't noticed it already.
Also, I would replace the sound of Gino walking with sound effects. It sounds like he's walking on a stage and the footsteps are kinda loud. It sounds like he's wearing boots. If he's meant to be a waiter, I'd say to remove that sound and add in a lighter, gentler footstep sound that also suggests fancy shoes. Or make it sound like he's walking on carpet (more likely in a restaurant), barely audible. That's how waiters are supposed to be. (He's probably not a waiter, but regardless he'd have gentle, fancy-shoes-footsteps.)
Also, funny scene! The last line (Ono said this and I agree) gets funnier everytime I hear it.
Another thing about the footstep sounds... There are only two of them, so you can tell that he started walking there from just five feet away.
Gino's line is better in the second clip, but I think rhythmically it should be separated like it is in the first clip. There should be a nice little beat between "Mr. Somethingsomething" and "Is everything to your satisfaction?"
Thanks for your help. Both your cuts are fine.
I just wanna find something that feels right but I'm afraid my inexperience know nothing about that.
There's a choice you have to make in this cut:
Do we cut for continuity or do we cut for pace?
I feel, if we match the glass the cut is too short and if we hold on Gino a bit longer the glass is off.
This is why I wanna take Murch's list into consideration. He makes a continuity error feel okay. Continuity should be at the bottom of your list when you cut. If possible a cut should have all of the six but if not then start with no. 1 and work your way down.
But it's , you know...I...it's, or maybe the cut isn't too short. I really don't know.
About footsteps and (the fucking monitor) humming. I have a post-production facility doing foley, cleaning of tracks and mixing. So there is no humming or awkward footsteps in the final soundtrack.
The perfectionist in me wants to put continuity up higher on that list. But still, I've cut things that didn't have continuity before, yet, they weren't as obvious. I think that it would be more obvious here, because there are only two motions--Gino's entrance and the movement of the hand with the wine. What you have to "feel" is if that can be gotten away with.
That said, I didn't feel that the pacing was that off. I suppose I could've held on Gino a few frames longer. Just don't miscut the motions. Cut while they're holding still. I think I would notice, onscreen, that sort of a continuity error.
I think the PACING is just about right, but I understand wanting to hold on Gino longer. Now that the motions and sound are synched up, you can simply cut to Gino BEFORE Viggo glances up at him, giving you a longer hold on Gino. I considered this, but decided that I liked Viggo's glace better. I don't think you can have both here. You'll have to choose between Viggo's glance and the longer hold on Gino. Or you can cut back into Viggo a bit later, after the glass is already put down. However, I think adding extra time would make it take too long for Viggo to reply.
But hey, ultimately, you're the director. You can ask for our opinions but you'll be the one who has to say "I wanna cut HERE, dammit!" When you do make your decision, be confident about it, and confident in your feel of the scene.
Good luck with it all.
Here (http://xixax.com/files/waitressmellslg.mov) is my attempt.
I did this last night and didn't have time to upload it because my computer decided to get a little freezy and I got a little tired.
This was before I got to see anyone else's.
This is something that's hard to do without context. I don't know what the rest of the pacing is like. JB's works, but I think it has too many cuts for such a simple interaction.
Matt seems to be worried too much about editing the audio... you can do that later, it's just the raw track anyway. Matt's also crosses the line, which I find jarring, even though it might not be to most people.
What I was going for was simplicity. Establishing his attitude and changing the eyeline before trying to jump across it.
anyway... it's hard to do without knowing what the rest of the film is like so I didn't spend much time fine-tuning... I was just putting in my two cents about how to get around crossing the line.
Thanks all for your efforts.
You've approached it differently as should be without knowing context.
I think I have a better sense of what I want. RegularKarate is very close to what I what I feel is right.
I gotta say Murch's list makes perfectly sense to me. Emotion and Story (big picture) before 180 and continuity.
Thank you all again.
Quote from: kotteThis is why I wanna take Murch's list into consideration. He makes a continuity error feel okay.
I think a continuity error would really hurt, though. The glass is really the only thing moving in this scene, and it's definitely the initial focus. People will follow it. If discontinuity is not distracting, it will probably produce an unintended emotional effect. So it's not like you can absolutely separate these categories. I think continuity can be emotion.
Quote from: RegularKarateJB's works, but I think it has too many cuts for such a simple interaction.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it. I tend to melodramatize things.
Quote from: RegularKarateMatt seems to be worried too much about editing the audio... you can do that later, it's just the raw track anyway. Matt's also crosses the line, which I find jarring, even though it might not be to most people.
I wouldn't say I'm TOO worried about it. As the only editor on my films, I edit sound and picture at the same time. I just consider it equally important.
Also, I have to admit that I don't understand what crossing the line means, even after it's been explained to me several times. It seems like a simple concept but I always get lost in the words of the explanation. I can't quite grasp it. Can someone try explaining it to me again? Crossing the line? In the simplest way possible?
Mac Posted This in another thread...
http://www.mavart.com/1997-05-12-crossing-the-line
to put it in very simple terms, if you have two people looking at eachother, draw a line between them. Every cut should stay on one side of that line unless you introduce another character or move across the line on camera.
With my cut, I waited until he was looking at his wine, which moved the line (though it's still kinda crossing the line).
Well, I see what it is now (it took me a little while). But that pretty much was in the camera angles, not in my edit, right? I wonder if flipping the picture in one of the shots would've helped? I dunno and I don't feel like trying it, but yeah, at least I know what that means now.
I also went back and checked my last movie and saw that I crossed the line. Oopsies. It's more of a camera angle thing, not an editing thing, it seems.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: kotteThis is why I wanna take Murch's list into consideration. He makes a continuity error feel okay.
I think a continuity error would really hurt, though. The glass is really the only thing moving in this scene, and it's definitely the initial focus. People will follow it. If discontinuity is not distracting, it will probably produce an unintended emotional effect. So it's not like you can absolutely separate these categories. I think continuity can be emotion.
Well, it depends on what kind of cut it is. But I believe you're right, the glass
is the only thing moving and it tells something about who Viggo is. There's so much to take into consideration in editing that I haven't even thought about once before.
It's a learning process.
Quote from: matt35mmAs the only editor on my films, I edit sound and picture at the same time. I just consider it equally important.
It
is equally important. That's why you have a whole team of sound editors, foley artists, sound designers, mixers etc etc to do the sound.
Because it is equally important, both deserves your unquestionable attention. Sync up the material and do not worry about sound 'till it's time to.
Next challenge.
Shot 1 (http://members.chello.se/kotte/shot1.mov) and Shot 2 (http://members.chello.se/kotte/shot2.mov).
Shot 1 is really the first shot after the title. Shot 2 follows.
How do I get from no. 1 to no. 2. It's a time-cut, of'course.
This problem is all about on-set screw-up. What I had in mind was a whip-pan / cut to Viggo.
But I can't seem to cut it in a smooth, soft way. What I have done the last month is trying to cut without the whip. Just before the whip happens. The goal is nothing more than a smooth and working cut.
Thing is, I don't wanna use advanced effects since it wouldn't be in tone with the rest of the film.
With or without the whip.
If you feel you can help, please! We're too blind to see what can be.
Why not a simple dissolve?
Anyway, I think the first shot should be much longer. Didn't you show us that clip before, but it dollied into a closeup?
Neither of them are complete. Don't have enough space on the server.
They're just to give you an idea.
i made two renegade edits of the last thing on friday but it was at school and i only realized how to upload from there when it was too late.
pop (http://xixax.com/files/picolas/twowaysimdestroyingyourintentio.mov).
That second one is fabulous. Use it, kotte!
It certainly made me LOL.
Im just saying something i love about editing. Watch a movie all the way through ok. Try to notice the cuts, or changes in camera angles. A well edited film flows so smothly that you never notice any of that. As film lovers i guess we see that stuff, but watch it with a friend that isn't in to film, someone that just likes to watch movies. They don't see that stuff. I just thing thats cool.
I like how if I'm trying to watch a movie for a while, looking at just the edits (and maybe some of the sound), if it's a well-made movie, I can't really do it for long because I'll get sucked back in.
Yeah, me too. Sometimes I'll watch a movie for the specific purpose of examining its technique...and then suddenly it'll be over and I haven't examined a single thing. But if it's a good movie, it's edifying on a subconscious level, too.
Quote from: GhostboyYeah, me too. Sometimes I'll watch a movie for the specific purpose of examining its technique...and then suddenly it'll be over and I haven't examined a single thing. But if it's a good movie, it's edifying on a subconscious level, too.
I tried to do that with Magnolia like the fourth time I saw it in the theater.
:lol:
That was a lesson in futulity. I think you're right. When something is well made it's difficult to try and put it in a box or examine technique. You just get lost, ya know?
I find that after a project, I start to see movies as seperate shots edited together without trying. It's just something that happens for a while after I've edited something. Especially after film school... for about four or five months after, I really had trouble watching films as a whole.
Quote from: wantautopia?I like how if I'm trying to watch a movie for a while, looking at just the edits (and maybe some of the sound), if it's a well-made movie, I can't really do it for long because I'll get sucked back in.
do it with a notebook and a pen
Kinky.
MAURA DID THAT IN A DELETED SCENE FROM PRIMAL FEAR
Quote from: In the 'What are you reading?' thread, kotteQuote from: ono mo cuishleIn the Blink of an Eye by Walter Murch. Thanks, Mr. Kotteeeeeeh.
So what do you think about it?
Excellent so far. I love how fast a read it is. And you know that feeling when you've learned something and you know it's right and you feel your brain forming a new wrinkle because it's just so perfect and you can't believe you didn't see it before? That's the feeling I got when I read the little ditty called "Don't Worry, It's Only A Movie." The theories about blinking you thought were awesome were the exact same thing I loved. One of the best insights I've ever seen about editing, and it's so obvious, so simple. The next chapter's follow-up is great about elaborating and expanding on it. Here's hoping it gets better.
If you want to study the editing of a film, watch it with the sound turned off. Or, start watching it half-way through, so you don't get emotionally involved in the story. I don't really study the editing of a film until I've seen it a few times, so I can digest the storyline and emotional content and study it in a clnical way.
Quote from: ono mo cuishleQuote from: In the 'What are you reading?' thread, kotteQuote from: ono mo cuishleIn the Blink of an Eye by Walter Murch. Thanks, Mr. Kotteeeeeeh.
So what do you think about it?
Excellent so far. I love how fast a read it is. And you know that feeling when you've learned something and you know it's right and you feel your brain forming a new wrinkle because it's just so perfect and you can't believe you didn't see it before? That's the feeling I got when I read the little ditty called "Don't Worry, It's Only A Movie." The theories about blinking you thought were awesome were the exact same thing I loved. One of the best insights I've ever seen about editing, and it's so obvious, so simple. The next chapter's follow-up is great about elaborating and expanding on it. Here's hoping it gets better.
It
is a very fast read.
At one point in the book he explains how he knows exactly where to cut and he simply let the film run in normal mode and hits the "cut-key" when he feels a cut would be appropriate. And he does this two or three times. If he doesn't land on the exact fram every time it's not a good cut.
This kinda freaked me out because there's no chance in hell I could ever do that (I tried). But then I realized he's talking from decades of experience...and it calmed me down.
I'm glad you like it.
there is a great documentary i am watching now on the new Bullitt: SE about editing called The Cutting Edge: The Magic Of Movie Editing. it basically goes back to silent films and covers the entire history of editing in 98 minutes. and it features interviews with M. Scorsese, A. Payne, G. Lucas, S. Spielberg, Q. Tarantino, R. Scott, J. Dante, L. Kasdan, J. Cameron, W. Craven, S. Penn, J. Foster, P. Verhoeven, A. Minghella, along with actual editors W. Murch, T. Schoonmaker, D. Tichenor, etc. and lots more. anyway, it's pretty facinating history and somewhat of an idiots guide to editing. http://imdb.com/title/tt0428441/ mac, have you watched this thing yet?
Quote from: themodernage02mac, have you watched this thing yet?
Yes. It was onTV a while back:
http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=7044
oh sweet. everyone watch this if you're interested in editing. :yabbse-thumbup:
Just thought I'd throw some stuff out there.
In the early days of film-making it was thought that women were also more attentive than men. Thus you had "Script Girls" now the script supervisor, and many more female editors.
Some editing theory(usage.. whatever) I really love is the jump cut. Godard will say that he would use a jump cut because he had no other options, but it did/does leave an impression on the viewer.
I'm thinking along the beginning of Full Metal Jacket, Vanilla Sky and ect... more modern filmmakers have found many clever uses of jump cuts, freeze frames, and other editing techniques born out of the New Wave.
and I'll also single out Leslie Jones editing of PDL. I can't really think of any other movie building up it's scenes in such a bizaar fashion. The pacing of that movie is just... awesome.
Does anyone know who first figured out connecting one shot to another? The very first films, I believe, were just very short, one continous shot. Someone obviously realized one shot could be spliced to another, and then another. But who was it? Has any serious film scholar figured this out?
Quote from: soixanteDoes anyone know who first figured out connecting one shot to another? The very first films, I believe, were just very short, one continous shot. Someone obviously realized one shot could be spliced to another, and then another. But who was it? Has any serious film scholar figured this out?
Can't remember his name, but, if I remember correctly, whoever it was is mentioned in the Cutting Edge doc mod and I discussed at the top of the page.
To the extent of my knowledge, although he wasn't the very first to employ juxtaposition, Edwin Porter (director of The Great Train Robbery usually gets the credit.
EDIT: consulting my dictionary of film, I see that G.A Smith and J. A Williamson and others from The Brighton School in England were the real innovators. They also apparently invented the close up.
Georges Melies discovered the use of editing for special effects by mistake!
Fascinating.
What's interesting is before films got a real sense of continuity, the consisted of the same action from different points of view. Jean Mirty in Psychology and aestethics of the cinema mentions early films where you'd see a speeding car go down a hill and run into a house. Then you'd see the interior of the house, still fine and untouched, only to have the car ram into it in that scene as well. Porter is mentioned quite a bit in the editing section of the book, at least in the history part.
Quote from: Just WithnailWhat's interesting is before films got a real sense of continuity, the consisted of the same action from different points of view. Jean Mirty in Psychology and aestethics of the cinema mentions early films where you'd see a speeding car go down a hill and run into a house. Then you'd see the interior of the house, still fine and untouched, only to have the car ram into it in that scene as well. Porter is mentioned quite a bit in the editing section of the book, at least in the history part.
Didn't Battleship Potemkin have a sequence where a sailor is shown breaking a plate several different times, or was he breaking different plates?
Don't remember those shots, but the technique I mentioned was long out of practice by the time of Potemkin.
Quote from: RaviQuote from: Just WithnailWhat's interesting is before films got a real sense of continuity, the consisted of the same action from different points of view. Jean Mirty in Psychology and aestethics of the cinema mentions early films where you'd see a speeding car go down a hill and run into a house. Then you'd see the interior of the house, still fine and untouched, only to have the car ram into it in that scene as well. Porter is mentioned quite a bit in the editing section of the book, at least in the history part.
Didn't Battleship Potemkin have a sequence where a sailor is shown breaking a plate several different times, or was he breaking different plates?
yo kid. its one.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv720%2Fithica45%2F479.jpg&hash=86547d46c4999baecc983b3b98552b86c8b0a0df)
I just scanned that from a book I own. If anyone wants to edit this and make it smaller or whatev, feel free.
I also scanned another page that explains all the boxes. want?
oh here http://www.worldisround.com/articles/193035/index.html thats where i put the scanned pages. go there and you can click enlarge. too bad you couldnt do that in real life, eh? haha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P24dypPQHg
Jackie Chan the editor.
Really awful English though.
Quote from: killafilm on July 15, 2005, 12:53:30 AM
In the early days of film-making it was thought that women were also more attentive than men. Thus you had "Script Girls" now the script supervisor, and many more female editors.
i know this is a really old post but it's dead wrong, and overly optimistic. it's a much colder reality. it's not a business model that producers and studios had preconceived notions of what each sex was good and used it to their advantage. the truth is that script girls and editors were considered mundane jobs. the editor was seen the same way as a tailor, someone that would cut and paste the film (literally) based on the director/producers intent. so women had these jobs because men were pig headed and didn't think women were creative... these positions were filled due to lack of interest from men, giving women undesirable tasks that was beneath what the men wanted to do. sad but true.
the editor wasn't considered a "creative" position to the studios until the late 50s early 60s, when the value of editing and how it influenced the rhetoric was finally considered integral to film. this is why you see more male editors emerge then, and inversely it is why women have held a strong hold on editing to this day.
This thread iz mad interesting and I'll revive it so some of the concepts can be reconsidered. Are there words to articulate the (possibly hundreds?) modes of editing?
Quote from: (kelvin) on January 08, 2004, 10:23:01 AM
My proposals for differenciation:
dialectical editing: editing that builds up a climax. It is dialectical: it carries the film and opposes antagonistic features that converge into a higher, purer, or let's say a more stable harmony. example: Battleship Potemkin
conservative editing: editing that forms harmony within the process of editing. There is no converging to a higher level. Harmony is given, harmony must be preserved. example: Triumph of the Will
expressive editing: there is no harmony that must be preserved or created. It often expresses the director's/editor's standpoint. example: A bout the souffle
narrative editing: The editing follows the film. This is the most "classical" approach. example: lots of them, so to say.
Feel free to criticize. :)
Harmony vs Propulsive is interesting, I'd say that is a better phrasing conceptually than Narrative v Dialectical only because it highlights a tug-of-war within where your edit "goes".
I'm not trying to tangle myself up too much with notions of auteurship or external influence much which is why I'm keeping my head in cases where either the filmmaker is known to get their way in tandem with the editor (David Lynch and Linklater are two that i can think of where they've used more than one grammar in their career, lynch possibly with the same editor). And sure not all 'construction' was the edit - a film from one characters perspective vs an ensemble then that's a structure that's not beholden to editorial decisions but that pieces design. So it gets tricky because film is all editing, in a sense each grammar would describe foundations for branching off totalities.
https://twitter.com/Karaszewski/status/1435625404711129097
What Milos mentions here as "the paradox of movie time" I find incredibly interesting. As GhostBoy phrased it earlier in this thread, some cuts are questions, others statements. I get this feeling that there's an entire range in there.
There are differences in the way time feels in IV vs The Long Goodbye, although formally they harken toward a similar aesthetic their grammar is different. And the same can be said about The Master - IV - Phantom Thread, I believe. Aesthetically Paul has an arena of "style", but the grammars within are distinct and each film its own.