Editing is ...

[Roberto Lequeux]

Editing is related to directing, like coloring to photography.



I'd say it reaches beyond production and script. Rhythmical sensibility of a good editor allows feeling the delicate 1 frame difference between "too much" and "just right". Then there is ability to adopt that sensibility to different scenarios/"feels" by perceiving the original feeling of the material and expressing it through adequate rhythm and order...and all that through multitasking of perceiving work as both craftsman and viewer at the same time.

If one is looking for a good editor, make sure he/she can pick up a beat. DJ-ing experience is a good sign. Music production even better. One who can perceive the difference in 1/32 of a 100BPM song (0.01 sec) will notice 1/24th of a sec (0.04 sec) without problems. Plus there are a lot of other related abilities...Meryem is spot on IMO.

I agree Hrvoje. A lot of editing is timing. Meryem makes a great point. There are several other important factors, but if you don't have timing...

I also agree with what you are saying about balance. But of course the best editor can't make movie ABC without the letters A, B and C. Editors don't create the style on their own; they are an intrinsically important player in a team of craftsmen working together. They value and seek out teammates that will know to provide all the elements necessary, all elements with which they become enabled to make their beautiful and elaborate arrangements really sing.

The ability to recognize and achieve balance is what makes all craftsmen. It doesn't matter what we are trying to create, or how it is done, you will invariably need craftsmen to make it artful. From Boom-OPs, to DPs, 1st ACs and beyond, you need true craftsmen to make the films we live for, the ones that captivate audiences (and become ever-green businesses!). And it all starts with producers who are craftsmen and artists themselves, because it takes one to know one.

 

[Brad Webb]

The director, editor, and cinematographer should all be one person. Especially if they're going to credit themselves with a "Film by..." title. Film, especially nowadays, is more visual than ever. Camera placement, coloring, lighting, lens choice, edit pacing, sound design, and score all trump actor performance 10 fold. If you're using someone else's talent to achieve those things you should be credited with ACTOR COACH and nothing more.

I strongly disagree. Acting always trumps everything. Look at the Star Wars prequels: amazing sound design, visual effects, score, camera placement etc. Terrible direction that got absolutely nothing from some very talented actors. You wind up with a shit movie.

Not every director deserves to have the "A Film by" credited to them, but many do. Every decision the director makes effects the film. They may choose what lens to use for every shot, but they chose the DP. The may not edit the movie, but they way they shot it, number of takes, length of shot, blocking, etc. heavily influences how the film is edited.

I'm not just talking about the best directors either. Micheal Bay, Tarsem, Zack Snyder all deserve to have the film credited to them.

The directors job isn't to make the film, it's to inspire people to make the film.

 

[Bryce O]

I strongly disagree. Acting always trumps everything. Look at the Star Wars prequels: amazing sound design, visual effects, score, camera placement etc. Terrible direction that got absolutely nothing from some very talented actors. You wind up with a shit movie.

Not every director deserves to have the "A Film by" credited to them, but many do. Every decision the director makes effects the film. They may choose what lens to use for every shot, but they chose the DP. The may not edit the movie, but they way they shot it, number of takes, length of shot, blocking, etc. heavily influences how the film is edited.

I'm not just talking about the best directors either. Micheal Bay, Tarsem, Zack Snyder all deserve to have the film credited to them.

The directors job isn't to make the film, it's to inspire people to make the film.

I agree with some of this... but I don't think the Starwars prequels are a good example of camera placement or cinematography. It really was them just walking for a few feet and then coldly reciting their dialog for nearly EVERY scene with the same shot-reverse-shot blocking. Even the fight scenes were just F-ing medium shots the whole time. Get a f-cking steady cam and track the actors for shits sake. It was like I was watching a stage play.

Although you made some good points, don't get caught up thinking acting "trumps everything". "Acting" or more-so what we see on the screen in a final product, is still heavily a function of editing, camera work, and good pacing. Think about it... If the actor is supposed to be delivering an emotional scene and the DP decides to shoot them with a 24mm lens from 20 ft away with a high-angle AND THEN the editor decides he wants to cut the scene like Die Hard you going to have a problem... and the performance IS going to look like shit... even if it was Oscar worthy. The cinematographer and editor can EASILY screw over a un-deserving director and actor if they wanted to... conversely, great shot movement and camera work combined with snappy and clever editing have been know to SAVE films and their directors MANY times. Granted I've really only worked on student films and low-budget productions so far... but the worst projects have always been where the "director" believes that performance trumps everything and puts no thought into camera movement, editing, or visual pacing. Then when it comes to "assemble" the footage the editor says something like "there is no visual continuity between takes and you crossed the 180 line like 8 times..." to which the director replies, "who cares! look at the performance! It was SO emotional! People are really going to FEEL this!" Not really... not when they have no idea what they're looking at.

Acting may trump everything in stage performances, but defiantly not the modern film. CONTINUITY trumps all... simply for the fact that everything fails without it.

 

[D Fuller]

Nothing trumps all. It's all important. Every one of the crafts of film making can ruin a film if done badly. Film making is about getting them all to work, and all to compliment each other to build the story in a coherent voice. It's hard. That's why there are so many bad films.

 

[David Battistella]

Just to bring in a "one man band" analogy. I think collaborations are important depending on the project. Some are very personal. I think even the film makers working on large sets can wish they were just making the film without the massive apparatus. (I'm thinking Coppola, Soderberg, etc.) But then again, some of their best work is collaborative.

What they bring to their collaborations is an understanding of all aspects of filmmaking, which means you now have two great cinematographers, two great editors, you get the point because the extra very attuned eyes and ears makes a difference.

Getting back to my music analogy, sure we had Howard Jones and then MOBY, but is that really the very best music? When I think about what bands (like WILCO) can still do, I see there is much magic that occurs in the dynamic of multiple creatives with a common goal.

Taking all of this back to editing, no matter how much you film you capture, I still have never seen anyone pay money to watch rushes (although I probably would if they were Clint Eastwood's rushes).

Coppola talked about how everyone would would day have a camera when he won at Cannes for Apocalypse Now. That was part of the story. When FCP was put on everyone's desktop (in a way AVID never wanted to penetrate the marketplace) then that signified a major leap forward for the craft of film making.

David

 

[Bryce O]

Nothing trumps all. It's all important. Every one of the crafts of film making can ruin a film if done badly.

Good point. I just said continuity because I've seen so many projects, even professional, that have great cinematography, editing, and acting that just don't "flow" together. That "flow" is continuity and the link between each element.

For example The Matrix had an amazing score, right? And Slum-dog Millionaire had great acting... But if you put them together it would be crap. And not just because the timing, it would be because the tones don't match up, like off-notes in a melody. That's continuity. Just because elements are good, doesn't mean they belong together. That's the directors job... continuity itself.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Macroscopic editing

Macroscopic editing

and it's exciting to take all these fractured bits of footage and arrange them into a story. There is tremendous power in arrangments, with little flashes of images, removing a few frames here and there, slowing it down, speeding it up, and really creating the film's rhythm.

If you want to understand feature film editing purchase a hand counter and a stop watch.

1) Start the DVD and the stop watch.

2) Every five minutes write down the total number of cuts.

3) Subratct the totals to get the shots per five minutes.

4) Plot those five minute averages on a bar-graph.

You will see things in the editing that you could not perceive just watching the film.

Note on the graph what is going on minute to minute.

I started making graphs like that many years ago to help with planing the shooting of feature films so I could understand how many setups were needed, vs. how many shots, and what the total number of shots needed were, and the times for the longest and shortest shots and how many of each and so on.

I wrote a computer program to do all that so you can push a button and it makes the graphs, maybe I will post it on my Web sit someday.

The best films to try first are:

Them! (1954)

The Birds (1963)

Other Alfred Hitchcock, note that the 'MacGuffin' comes in at about 25 minutes such as the champagne bottle in Notorious (1946)

Indiana Jones movies.

'Toy Story' movies.

The five minute period seems to work best to see the editing rate change if shorter you see too much "noise" and longer you do not see the rate of change as well.

Its best to do it with the sound OFF so you don't get involved with watching the movie and miss a cut, some 5 minute periods may only have 3 to 5 shots, and others will have very many maybe 100+.

Next read the books by FREDERICK PALMER, here is the Photoplay plot encyclopedia, there are others,

http://www.archive.org/stream/photoplayplotenc00palmrich/photoplayplotenc00palmrich_djvu.txt

Quote: ["Photoplay plot encyclopedia; an analysis of the use in photoplays of the thirty-six dramatic situations and their subdivisions. Containing a list of all the fundamental dramatic material to be found in human experience, including the synopses of one hundred produced representative photoplays, with a detailed analysis of the situations used in each. Practical suggestions for combining situations, for testing the strength and novelty of plots, and for building plots; and an index referring to each producer, author, star, story and situation mentioned in the text"]

Quote: [19. Without situations, fiction and drama will be a mere sequence of irrelevant
incidents. In themselves such incidents may be of interest. They may be revelatory
of character, or expressive of a significant theme. But unless they are co-ordinated upon
a solid, firm foundation they will fall short of producing a dramatic appeal. Every
photoplay must have a spinal column of situation.]

"Editing" is the grammar of cinematography, but even with perfect grammar you need to be saying something coherent...

Here are some other texts from that company,

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=PALMER PHOTOPLAY CORPORATION AND mediatype:texts

Many working in the "old Hollywood" may have read those.

Quote: [2. A perfect photoplay, which, unfortunately, is
rarely seen, is as beautiful a piece of dramatic machinery
as is a Swiss watch. In the watch every wheel, spring,
jewel and pivot has its exact function ; not a single wheel
is included for any reason but to perfect the movement
of the watch; and to remove any single part of the
machinery means to stop the perfect movement, to upset
the precise function of the whole. ]

 

[Bill Anderson]

Keep in mind that Alex seems to be looking at this from the perspective of a writer who wishes to supplement his/her screenwriting skills. Perhaps, like Michael Ondaatje and his fascination with editing, Walter Murch style, Alex is not interested in becoming a skilled editor.