Back to the world of things we know!
Here's black hole. A great continuity film.
Look at those cuts. Perfect.
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Where is the join in this?
How far can you stretch editing?
Below is famous artist and experimental film maker Stan Brakhage's film 'Mothlight'.
You might get through about ten seconds, try and watch all of it.
This breaks most of Walter Murch's rules. Certainly there is no story.
But what about emotion?
It is a visual poem of sorts. It has a theme.
What effect though does it have on you? What, if anything, do you feel when you watch it?
What can we all learn about editing from watching this and the other clips?
I think I get something about speed and how it reacts with the mind of the audience.
Also, there is something primal in this, it creates a gut reaction and is unafraid to push the audience into understanding or not understanding. Again, a brave stance for any film. It's like somebody that doesn't totally care whether you like them or not. You can take them or leave them.
These type of films, on the fringes of the mainstream, can often influence mainstream film makers.
Below is famous artist and experimental film maker Stan Brakhage's film 'Mothlight'.
You might get through about ten seconds, try and watch all of it.
This breaks most of Walter Murch's rules. Certainly there is no story.
But what about emotion?
It is a visual poem of sorts. It has a theme.
What effect though does it have on you? What, if anything, do you feel when you watch it?
What can we all learn about editing from watching this and the other clips?
I think I get something about speed and how it reacts with the mind of the audience.
Also, there is something primal in this, it creates a gut reaction and is unafraid to push the audience into understanding or not understanding. Again, a brave stance for any film. It's like somebody that doesn't totally care whether you like them or not. You can take them or leave them.
These type of films, on the fringes of the mainstream, can often influence mainstream film makers.
Student made this film about the Russians.
It's low-fi, home made, but contains a lot of interesting information on the particular period of Russian film making I've looked at.
Assimilating Eisenstein
The world of mainstream films is still dominated by classical continuity editing, not Russian dialectical montage.
However, the effects of Eisenstein reach far and wide and new film makers when they come to him can't help but be affected by his, still fresh and original cutting.
He continues to influence editors today. And to take us right back to the start. The Bourne Identity bears some passing relationship to the some of the action sequences in Battleship Potemkin, certainly for speed at least, as well as for conflict.
"In the late 1950s and early 1960s, films of the French New Wave introduced a more aggressive editing style than was typical of the Hollywood studios. À bout de souffle ( Breathless , 1960), directed by Jean-Luc Godard (b. 1930), used jump cuts that left out parts of the action to produce discontinuities between shots, and American directors a decade later assimilated this approach in pictures such as Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and Easy Rider (1969). As a result, by the 1970s the highly regulated point-of-view editing used in classical Hollywood began to break down as an industry standard, and the cutting style of American films became more eclectic, exhibiting a mixture of classical continuity and more abrupt, collage-like editing styles."
Source: http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Criticism-Ideology/Editing-THE-DEVELOPMENT-OF-EDITING.html
Can you think of films you've watched that use aspects of Russian Montage? Either very fast editing, or where the rules of classical continuity have been abandoned?
You could argue Eisenstein, and his contemporary, Pudovkin went too far. You could argue they sacrificed the attention of the audience in pursuit of the vision of film as art.
Certainly, some of the Russian films from this period are no easy watch.
Brave though.
However, the effects of Eisenstein reach far and wide and new film makers when they come to him can't help but be affected by his, still fresh and original cutting.
He continues to influence editors today. And to take us right back to the start. The Bourne Identity bears some passing relationship to the some of the action sequences in Battleship Potemkin, certainly for speed at least, as well as for conflict.
"In the late 1950s and early 1960s, films of the French New Wave introduced a more aggressive editing style than was typical of the Hollywood studios. À bout de souffle ( Breathless , 1960), directed by Jean-Luc Godard (b. 1930), used jump cuts that left out parts of the action to produce discontinuities between shots, and American directors a decade later assimilated this approach in pictures such as Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and Easy Rider (1969). As a result, by the 1970s the highly regulated point-of-view editing used in classical Hollywood began to break down as an industry standard, and the cutting style of American films became more eclectic, exhibiting a mixture of classical continuity and more abrupt, collage-like editing styles."
Source: http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Criticism-Ideology/Editing-THE-DEVELOPMENT-OF-EDITING.html
Can you think of films you've watched that use aspects of Russian Montage? Either very fast editing, or where the rules of classical continuity have been abandoned?
You could argue Eisenstein, and his contemporary, Pudovkin went too far. You could argue they sacrificed the attention of the audience in pursuit of the vision of film as art.
Certainly, some of the Russian films from this period are no easy watch.
Brave though.
So what is Eisenstein's Contribution to Editing
Eisenstein pushed the grammar of film editing to its limits with his films and his style and what he learnt about what an audience understand is definately something that a lot of editors, and hopefully you, will learn from.
A typical American film at the time would have had around 300 cuts, an Eisenstein film had around 1000.
Here is his contribution put very nicely:
"Eisenstein believed that editing was the foundation of film art. For Eisenstein, meaning in cinema lay not in the individual shot but only in the relationships among shots established by editing. Translating a Marxist political perspective into the language of cinema, Eisenstein referred to his editing as "dialectical montage" because it aimed to expose the essential contradictions of existence and the political order. Because conflict was essential to the political praxis of Marxism, the idea of conflict furnished the logic of Eisenstein's shot changes, which gives his silent films a rough, jagged quality. His shots do not combine smoothly, as in the continuity editing of D. W. Griffith and Hollywood cinema, but clash and bang together. Thus, his montages were eminently suited to depictions of violence, as in Strike , Potemkin , and Ten Days . In his essays Eisenstein enumerated the numerous types of conflict that he found essential to cinema. These included conflicts among graphic elements in a composition and between shots, and conflict of time and space created in the editing process and by filming with different camera speeds.":
Source: http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Criticism-Ideology/Editing-THE-DEVELOPMENT-OF-EDITING.html
So, as I said earlier, you can't really seperate easily Eisenstein from the political background he came from. I wonder does you're political background effect your film making? Does mine?
We really don't do very many stories that you could say - that's Northern Irish. Maybe that's a challenge for us. What would you say about things here?
A typical American film at the time would have had around 300 cuts, an Eisenstein film had around 1000.
Here is his contribution put very nicely:
"Eisenstein believed that editing was the foundation of film art. For Eisenstein, meaning in cinema lay not in the individual shot but only in the relationships among shots established by editing. Translating a Marxist political perspective into the language of cinema, Eisenstein referred to his editing as "dialectical montage" because it aimed to expose the essential contradictions of existence and the political order. Because conflict was essential to the political praxis of Marxism, the idea of conflict furnished the logic of Eisenstein's shot changes, which gives his silent films a rough, jagged quality. His shots do not combine smoothly, as in the continuity editing of D. W. Griffith and Hollywood cinema, but clash and bang together. Thus, his montages were eminently suited to depictions of violence, as in Strike , Potemkin , and Ten Days . In his essays Eisenstein enumerated the numerous types of conflict that he found essential to cinema. These included conflicts among graphic elements in a composition and between shots, and conflict of time and space created in the editing process and by filming with different camera speeds.":
Source: http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Criticism-Ideology/Editing-THE-DEVELOPMENT-OF-EDITING.html
So, as I said earlier, you can't really seperate easily Eisenstein from the political background he came from. I wonder does you're political background effect your film making? Does mine?
We really don't do very many stories that you could say - that's Northern Irish. Maybe that's a challenge for us. What would you say about things here?
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
Eisenstein
Sergi, oh Sergi.
The great master of the juxtaposition.
Fun times ahead.
Sergi was a revolutionary. He was a film artist I believe.
Artist in the sense of the word that he had a vision, and whether or not that vision worked with the mainstream fare of cinema at the time was of less concern than seeing his vision through to its natural conclusion.
His most famous films are Battleship Potemkin, Strike and October (the Revolution Trilogy)
It's impossible to separate Sergi from the communist state. The communists, under Lenin, wanted to use film as a propaganda tool. They weren't evil, everyone was at it, once they realised the long reach of cinema to be watched by millions and yet still be an intensely personal experience.
Sergi's work in his early films reflected strongly the values of Soviet Russia but this doesn't detract from its power.
His main preoccupation, and the central theme of his poetic theory of editing was that all, yes, ALL, cinema should be concerned with MONTAGE.
Montage was the positioning or 'collision' of two shots to create a reaction with the audience.
Back to, her anger burned like the sun, I drank some water and watched the wind.
Hmm. Dunno about that one.
Anyway. Eisenstein moved the ball along with his approach. He showed that you could employ metaphorical techniques to cinema with some interesting and often startling results.
The one always wheeled out to exemplify this point is in Strike! where he juxtaposes a strike by factory workers, and their violent slaughter, with images of cattle being slaughtered.
The music is added by the way, it was a silent film and much better watched that way. Turn the noise of and try and feel what the editor was getting at.
Charlie Chaplin did something similar with sheep (and the black sheep) at the start of Modern Times.
Go to 1.10 to see what I'm talking about.
The great master of the juxtaposition.
Fun times ahead.
Sergi was a revolutionary. He was a film artist I believe.
Artist in the sense of the word that he had a vision, and whether or not that vision worked with the mainstream fare of cinema at the time was of less concern than seeing his vision through to its natural conclusion.
His most famous films are Battleship Potemkin, Strike and October (the Revolution Trilogy)
It's impossible to separate Sergi from the communist state. The communists, under Lenin, wanted to use film as a propaganda tool. They weren't evil, everyone was at it, once they realised the long reach of cinema to be watched by millions and yet still be an intensely personal experience.
Sergi's work in his early films reflected strongly the values of Soviet Russia but this doesn't detract from its power.
His main preoccupation, and the central theme of his poetic theory of editing was that all, yes, ALL, cinema should be concerned with MONTAGE.
Montage was the positioning or 'collision' of two shots to create a reaction with the audience.
Back to, her anger burned like the sun, I drank some water and watched the wind.
Hmm. Dunno about that one.
Anyway. Eisenstein moved the ball along with his approach. He showed that you could employ metaphorical techniques to cinema with some interesting and often startling results.
The one always wheeled out to exemplify this point is in Strike! where he juxtaposes a strike by factory workers, and their violent slaughter, with images of cattle being slaughtered.
The music is added by the way, it was a silent film and much better watched that way. Turn the noise of and try and feel what the editor was getting at.
Charlie Chaplin did something similar with sheep (and the black sheep) at the start of Modern Times.
Go to 1.10 to see what I'm talking about.
Reach as Metaphor. Burger ad as metaphor (dodgy)
A little diversion for a moment from editing theory.
Just to talk about metaphors for a moment.
The Russians, Kuleshov and especially Eisenstein were interested in the metaphorical power of film.
But what is metaphor in film?
Well, a metaphor is something that is used in place of something else to suggest a likeness between them.
Her anger burned like the sun.
Pretty crappy I know, but you get the point.
I'm fascinated by metaphor. And the idea that when we watch something, we are maybe processing it in a completely different way.
Take the film Reach for example. What could it be a metaphor for?
Life? We are all going to die and is it worth it to struggle for greatness?
These questions might not be worth asking when you watch a film, but they are interesting
when you are writing one, and trying to sell one.
I recently went to a conference with lots of sales agents and distributors and they all said the same thing: know what the 'big theme' of your film is. And make sure it doesn't have too many.
Interesting.
I think.
Speaking of metahpors, what is this ad, and many others, really saying to you?
Just to talk about metaphors for a moment.
The Russians, Kuleshov and especially Eisenstein were interested in the metaphorical power of film.
But what is metaphor in film?
Well, a metaphor is something that is used in place of something else to suggest a likeness between them.
Her anger burned like the sun.
Pretty crappy I know, but you get the point.
I'm fascinated by metaphor. And the idea that when we watch something, we are maybe processing it in a completely different way.
Take the film Reach for example. What could it be a metaphor for?
Life? We are all going to die and is it worth it to struggle for greatness?
These questions might not be worth asking when you watch a film, but they are interesting
when you are writing one, and trying to sell one.
I recently went to a conference with lots of sales agents and distributors and they all said the same thing: know what the 'big theme' of your film is. And make sure it doesn't have too many.
Interesting.
I think.
Speaking of metahpors, what is this ad, and many others, really saying to you?
The Kuleshov Experiment
The Russians, especially Leo Kuleshov, Sergi Eisenstein and Digi Vertov were all interested in moving the grammar of film editing on.
To even greater heights.
How's this refer back to poetry?
Well, a poet puts images in front of you in the hope that the clash (juxtaposition) or the mere existence of the image itself will generate within you feelings.
The trick, and the head bender, is that those feelings are not being made by the film maker. They are being made by you.
You are taking the images and, like someone joining the dots, your mind sets to work on them to find and create meaning. The more poetic your sensibility (no bad thing for an editor to read poetry and develop the sense of how image and mind link to one another) the greater you will be able to read into things.
To those with less poetic sensibility the following may just look like a random bunch of images intercut with some made white faced nutter. If it bores you, and it might, check out the very creative Kuleshov experiment. It's in Spanish but it won't matter. Maybe the sound of Spanish will conjour something else, out of thing air!
The question to let your mind wander over is: what are the men in the two films thinking about?
However, this experiment is vital to understand how your audience might be perceiving things.
To even greater heights.
How's this refer back to poetry?
Well, a poet puts images in front of you in the hope that the clash (juxtaposition) or the mere existence of the image itself will generate within you feelings.
The trick, and the head bender, is that those feelings are not being made by the film maker. They are being made by you.
You are taking the images and, like someone joining the dots, your mind sets to work on them to find and create meaning. The more poetic your sensibility (no bad thing for an editor to read poetry and develop the sense of how image and mind link to one another) the greater you will be able to read into things.
To those with less poetic sensibility the following may just look like a random bunch of images intercut with some made white faced nutter. If it bores you, and it might, check out the very creative Kuleshov experiment. It's in Spanish but it won't matter. Maybe the sound of Spanish will conjour something else, out of thing air!
The question to let your mind wander over is: what are the men in the two films thinking about?
However, this experiment is vital to understand how your audience might be perceiving things.
A very interesting experiment
So, moving on somewhat, lets enter more murky territory.
A poem would help here.
Take a look at this poem. It's by Simon Armitage.
I know. It's a poem. How very dare I. Go with me on this though, I am going somewhere with this and it is, to me, the crux of understanding how to edit professionally.
It ain't what you do, it's what it does to you
A poem would help here.
Take a look at this poem. It's by Simon Armitage.
I know. It's a poem. How very dare I. Go with me on this though, I am going somewhere with this and it is, to me, the crux of understanding how to edit professionally.
It ain't what you do, it's what it does to you
| I have not bummed across America with only a dollar to spare, one pair of busted Levi's and a bowie knife. I have lived with thieves in Manchester. I have not padded through the Taj Mahal, barefoot, listening to the space between each footfall picking up and putting down its print against the marble floor. But I skimmed flat stones across Black Moss on a day so still I could hear each set of ripples as they crossed. I felt each stone's inertia spend itself against the water; then sink. I have not toyed with a parachute cord while perched on the lip of a light-aircraft; but I held the wobbly head of a boy at the day centre, and stroked his fat hands. And I guess that the tightness in the throat and the tiny cascading sensation somewhere inside us are both part of that sense of something else. That feeling, I mean. What does this poem - hopefully something - make you feel? It's quite visual isn't it. Lots of beautiful observation that could create pictures in your mind. And those images, say the thieves in Manchester and then padding through the Taj Mahal come very close to one another. So, get to the point Paul. Here goes, when you think of thieves of Manchester quickly followed by padding through the Taj Mahal how does that make you feel? There is nothing in the words demanding that you feel anything. The poet has simply put two images alongside one another. It has juxtaposed them. So, what do you feel and when you answer that, is, what you feel written anywhere in the poem? Nope. That's magic. Or (if you didn't like the poem) it's not magic at all, its tragic and a waste of your valuable life time. Don't worry, I'll do another example in a moment. However, this is an example of the theory behind the Kuleshov effect as well as hinting at what the great Sergi Eisenstein called Montage Editing. Not Rocky. Ever! |
True Heart Susie and Making Films for Social Change
If you get a chance, take a look at another Griffith's film: True Heart Susie.
Or at least, watch the opening credits which 'explain' the theme of the film and the motivation of the film maker.
We might scoff at such sentiment - after all a film is just a film - but in the birthing period of film making in the early twentieth century film was viewed as a very powerful tool.
One that could be used for social change, or to represent a film makers views on something.
It's one of the sociologists as to whether the media influences you, and how much. I think it's a given that it does. And that leads us onto, sweetly the next great movements in film editing. The Russians. For they were, or at least their paymasters were very interested in how film could convince people, represent a message and ultimately, control.
First though, check out the credits of True Heart Susie, and ask yourself, did you marry for money, love or because you were getting bored with yourself...
Or at least, watch the opening credits which 'explain' the theme of the film and the motivation of the film maker.
We might scoff at such sentiment - after all a film is just a film - but in the birthing period of film making in the early twentieth century film was viewed as a very powerful tool.
One that could be used for social change, or to represent a film makers views on something.
It's one of the sociologists as to whether the media influences you, and how much. I think it's a given that it does. And that leads us onto, sweetly the next great movements in film editing. The Russians. For they were, or at least their paymasters were very interested in how film could convince people, represent a message and ultimately, control.
First though, check out the credits of True Heart Susie, and ask yourself, did you marry for money, love or because you were getting bored with yourself...
Continuity Continued: D W Griffith
Just to recap.
Continuity editing, or classical editing, began around the work of Edwin S Porter (and many others).
The films, as you've seen, are short, slow (by today's standards) and mostly shot in wide.
However, they are exceptional because film makers made the discovery that people will follow a story as long as the information keeps flowing in a continuous fashion.
Let's get a little scientific for a moment. If you look at Porter's films you'll notice the unit of the edit (the chunks by which the editor works with) can be as long as thirty seconds and usually contains a whole scene. In other words, shots were scenes in themselves.
If we move along to the next step in editing history, we meet D W Griffith, a former actor turned film maker, famous for developing the simple grammar of Porter into a much more complex and rich experience for the audience.
Back to the science. When you watch some of Griffith's work (below) you'll notice the grammar of the edit (the chunks, or clips to use the right term) has changed. No longer are whole shots whole scenes. He's chopped things up, focussed on details, gone close and suddenly the description of what a shot is has changed.
Be good to remember it: a shot (a unit of an edit) gives the audience enough information to link back to what has just happened and enough of a push to make them what to know what is about to happen.
In accordance with that, as you'd expect, Griffith's work is much more tense and emotional. The very unit of editing had moved from being an elastic band stretching over a whole scene, to a taught wire, pulling you from shot to shot with a more breathtaking speed.
To recap, Griffith is famous for bringing the following to continuity editing:
the close up
the blockbuster or feature length film
rhythm in longer form storytelling
acute observation of reality to heighten tension
cross cutting to build tension
Charlie Chaplin called him the 'Father of all of Us'.
You'll still find Birth of a Nation slow and probably boring. But stick with it, there are a couple of great scenes, especially when action is involved that set the standard for how editing such sequences could take place.
For a potted (and very overblown) history of his films and his life visit:
http://www.gildasattic.com/dwgriffith.html
Below, is a taster of Birth of a Nation, but probably the better, albeit less controversial film, is Intolerance. Some of his others are also excellent. Study the cuts if you can. Think back to the decisions he was making to get the effect. You'll be doing the same, coming to your edits virtually fresh, so you and Griffith are walking the same way. Kinda.
Continuity editing, or classical editing, began around the work of Edwin S Porter (and many others).
The films, as you've seen, are short, slow (by today's standards) and mostly shot in wide.
However, they are exceptional because film makers made the discovery that people will follow a story as long as the information keeps flowing in a continuous fashion.
Let's get a little scientific for a moment. If you look at Porter's films you'll notice the unit of the edit (the chunks by which the editor works with) can be as long as thirty seconds and usually contains a whole scene. In other words, shots were scenes in themselves.
If we move along to the next step in editing history, we meet D W Griffith, a former actor turned film maker, famous for developing the simple grammar of Porter into a much more complex and rich experience for the audience.
Back to the science. When you watch some of Griffith's work (below) you'll notice the grammar of the edit (the chunks, or clips to use the right term) has changed. No longer are whole shots whole scenes. He's chopped things up, focussed on details, gone close and suddenly the description of what a shot is has changed.
Be good to remember it: a shot (a unit of an edit) gives the audience enough information to link back to what has just happened and enough of a push to make them what to know what is about to happen.
In accordance with that, as you'd expect, Griffith's work is much more tense and emotional. The very unit of editing had moved from being an elastic band stretching over a whole scene, to a taught wire, pulling you from shot to shot with a more breathtaking speed.
To recap, Griffith is famous for bringing the following to continuity editing:
the close up
the blockbuster or feature length film
rhythm in longer form storytelling
acute observation of reality to heighten tension
cross cutting to build tension
Charlie Chaplin called him the 'Father of all of Us'.
You'll still find Birth of a Nation slow and probably boring. But stick with it, there are a couple of great scenes, especially when action is involved that set the standard for how editing such sequences could take place.
For a potted (and very overblown) history of his films and his life visit:
http://www.gildasattic.com/dwgriffith.html
Below, is a taster of Birth of a Nation, but probably the better, albeit less controversial film, is Intolerance. Some of his others are also excellent. Study the cuts if you can. Think back to the decisions he was making to get the effect. You'll be doing the same, coming to your edits virtually fresh, so you and Griffith are walking the same way. Kinda.
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Rule of Six: Rhythm
Going back for a second to Murch's idea of rhythm in cutting.
Rhythm can be a difficult thing to pin down and define. It's easy to feel, hard to explain.
I found an interesting article, with video clips from two different movies which elucidates it beautifully.
Check out
http://classes.yale.edu/film-analysis/htmfiles/editing.htm
and scroll down most of the way down to the bottom till you find a heading RHYTHM.
Notice the different emotional effects that the different editing rhythms give to you the audience. Could you use this somewhere in your films yourself? What does it teach you about editing?
Rhythm can be a difficult thing to pin down and define. It's easy to feel, hard to explain.
I found an interesting article, with video clips from two different movies which elucidates it beautifully.
Check out
http://classes.yale.edu/film-analysis/htmfiles/editing.htm
and scroll down most of the way down to the bottom till you find a heading RHYTHM.
Notice the different emotional effects that the different editing rhythms give to you the audience. Could you use this somewhere in your films yourself? What does it teach you about editing?
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Classical Continuity, em, 2
So, Porter had discovered the basics of the classical system.
There are a bunch of tools at your disposal in the classical system. And, lets face it, people expect to see them when they watch a film.
Before them, a quick definition. This isn't great, but its a good way to remember it.
Continuity film making is when you don't notice the editor telling you a story and you don't notice you're being told a story, you simply watch, and enjoy.
There is a tonne of stuff online and in books about continuity editing, go research.
Here's a few of the techniques of continuity editing.
180 degree rule
shot reverse shot
establishing shots
eye line match
match on action
cross or parallel cutting
Here's a voice over on V for Vendetta which explains some of these techniques. After cross cutting there is another two minutes where he doesn't say anything, so don't hang about.
Sorry, couldn't embed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xauSCz1mEk&feature=related
Here's a bunch of continuity errors which proves that as long as the emotion is in the right place, the audience probably won't notice - so take a chance and don't be afraid!
http://youtu.be/RJ0v5H3Uctw
There are a bunch of tools at your disposal in the classical system. And, lets face it, people expect to see them when they watch a film.
Before them, a quick definition. This isn't great, but its a good way to remember it.
Continuity film making is when you don't notice the editor telling you a story and you don't notice you're being told a story, you simply watch, and enjoy.
There is a tonne of stuff online and in books about continuity editing, go research.
Here's a few of the techniques of continuity editing.
180 degree rule
shot reverse shot
establishing shots
eye line match
match on action
cross or parallel cutting
Here's a voice over on V for Vendetta which explains some of these techniques. After cross cutting there is another two minutes where he doesn't say anything, so don't hang about.
Sorry, couldn't embed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xauSCz1mEk&feature=related
Here's a bunch of continuity errors which proves that as long as the emotion is in the right place, the audience probably won't notice - so take a chance and don't be afraid!
http://youtu.be/RJ0v5H3Uctw
Classical Continuity
Classical continuity editing the predominant form of editing in TV and Film.
That DOESN'T mean its the ONLY form of editing.
Expose yourself... to other forms.
Check out, for a moment, some early Man Ray. This guy predated MTV by about sixty years. He was an artist, interested in rhythm and pace and emotion and he created this.
What can you learn from this? That you dislike, or possibly hate French artists from the 1920s? But think about most modern film title sequences, they are laced with this non-narrative out of focus screen saver-ish type of beauty.
Man Ray, I suspect, was an artist and therefore interested not in telling 'stories' but in revealing something about ourselves by dipping into our subconscious.
How to do that? By taking us back to our early days, when the world was just colour and sound and blur without much meaning. Could that have been his reasoning? Is that how screen savers and other effects work - because they relax us or do something to our mind?
The other question, which the Russians tried to answer (more on them later) is how far can film go to get under your skin and into your mind? How powerful is the image?
The answer already been answered. It's all powerful. So powerful it is normal and we rarely question it anymore.
What can you do with that as an Editor?
Sorry, this should've been about continuity editing.
That DOESN'T mean its the ONLY form of editing.
Expose yourself... to other forms.
Check out, for a moment, some early Man Ray. This guy predated MTV by about sixty years. He was an artist, interested in rhythm and pace and emotion and he created this.
What can you learn from this? That you dislike, or possibly hate French artists from the 1920s? But think about most modern film title sequences, they are laced with this non-narrative out of focus screen saver-ish type of beauty.
Man Ray, I suspect, was an artist and therefore interested not in telling 'stories' but in revealing something about ourselves by dipping into our subconscious.
How to do that? By taking us back to our early days, when the world was just colour and sound and blur without much meaning. Could that have been his reasoning? Is that how screen savers and other effects work - because they relax us or do something to our mind?
The other question, which the Russians tried to answer (more on them later) is how far can film go to get under your skin and into your mind? How powerful is the image?
The answer already been answered. It's all powerful. So powerful it is normal and we rarely question it anymore.
What can you do with that as an Editor?
Sorry, this should've been about continuity editing.
Edwin S Porter
If you watch Edwin S. Porter's seminal film, the life of an American Airman, you won't be impressed.
You'll find it slow. Boring. Dated. Probably a little strange.
It is however, one of the best examples, quickly followed by others, of what we call continuity editing. Or what came to be called classical continuity editing.
Basically, the story goes, he put together footage they already had of burning buildings with new footage he had shot, and bingo, the audience didn't challenge it.
This is important. You have to, I think, ask yourself, what can be learnt by that fact?
How far will the audience go in believing your story? How much do they need to keep in with what you are trying to tell them? Can you switch them of with not enough, or too much, in your editing?
A simple rule can be learnt from this very early little continuity film - The Kiss in the Tunnel. It has an beginning, a middle and an end. Not much of a story sure. No characterisation at all. However, still a beginning, a middle and, of sorts, an end.
Sounds trite almost to say it, but if you should be looking for those scenes in your editing from the very start.
Porter realised that the audience had become more sophisticated that the single reel actualities of the Lumiere brothers. Film was coming into its own.
A better film to watch of Porter's is the Great Train Robbery. It uses another sophisticated technique which has become part of the classical continuity cannon: cross cutting (parallel cutting).
You'll find it slow. Boring. Dated. Probably a little strange.
It is however, one of the best examples, quickly followed by others, of what we call continuity editing. Or what came to be called classical continuity editing.
Basically, the story goes, he put together footage they already had of burning buildings with new footage he had shot, and bingo, the audience didn't challenge it.
This is important. You have to, I think, ask yourself, what can be learnt by that fact?
How far will the audience go in believing your story? How much do they need to keep in with what you are trying to tell them? Can you switch them of with not enough, or too much, in your editing?
A simple rule can be learnt from this very early little continuity film - The Kiss in the Tunnel. It has an beginning, a middle and an end. Not much of a story sure. No characterisation at all. However, still a beginning, a middle and, of sorts, an end.
Sounds trite almost to say it, but if you should be looking for those scenes in your editing from the very start.
Porter realised that the audience had become more sophisticated that the single reel actualities of the Lumiere brothers. Film was coming into its own.
A better film to watch of Porter's is the Great Train Robbery. It uses another sophisticated technique which has become part of the classical continuity cannon: cross cutting (parallel cutting).
Okay, the history and theory stuff
Now look, lots of people give Wiki a hard time. How dare you read Wiki.
The wiki page on Editing isn't bad. I know you'll read it, I did. I'm not ashamed.
It's a decent entry point, but can't take you as far as you need to go.
I also read Karel Reisz's excellent Technique of Film Editing, a copy of which is in the library.
It details, shot by shot in many cases, many of the early attempts at editing and what was learnt by the editor and how it was carried on by the next generation of editors.
It's invaluable.
If you don't read that, then might I suggest you read the following below. It isn't in the order I'd like but it does detail all the major movements and players in editing history as well as a bucket load of other stuff.
http://kino-eye.com/drafts/Film_Editing_v0.2.pdf
The major movers and shakers in the history of editing are:
Edwin S. Porter
D.W. Griffith
Leo Kuleshov
Sergi Eisenstein
There are of course, lots of others, but for our sakes we'll look at these four.
The wiki page on Editing isn't bad. I know you'll read it, I did. I'm not ashamed.
It's a decent entry point, but can't take you as far as you need to go.
I also read Karel Reisz's excellent Technique of Film Editing, a copy of which is in the library.
It details, shot by shot in many cases, many of the early attempts at editing and what was learnt by the editor and how it was carried on by the next generation of editors.
It's invaluable.
If you don't read that, then might I suggest you read the following below. It isn't in the order I'd like but it does detail all the major movements and players in editing history as well as a bucket load of other stuff.
http://kino-eye.com/drafts/Film_Editing_v0.2.pdf
The major movers and shakers in the history of editing are:
Edwin S. Porter
D.W. Griffith
Leo Kuleshov
Sergi Eisenstein
There are of course, lots of others, but for our sakes we'll look at these four.
Applying the Rule of Six
Theory is only useful if it can be made into something real for you.
So, here's an idea.
Take a scene from a film.
Most films have around thirty to forty scenes, so it should last about three to four minutes.
Analyse the scene and see where you can apply Walter's Rule of Six.
Walter's Number 1 rule is this: EMOTION.
Prove it. Fair enough. There are countless examples of films with continuity errors that you simply won't notice because you are taken up with the emotion of the film.
I found this one on wiki, may my god preserve me.
A good example of a continuity error is in the film Braveheart with Mel Gibson. In one of the battle scenes you see William Wallace (Mel Gibson) and his army of Scottish rebels charging into battle with the English. At one moment, you see him with no weapon. Then you see him with his claymore in hand. Then again he has no weapon. Then a pick axe. And when he finally closes in on the enemy, you see him draw his claymore from his back. This often goes unnoticed by audiences and it does not cause any real problems. The whole idea of the scene is to show the rebels fiercely charging into battle, and these errors do not actually interfere with that
Anyway, back to the applying theory.
Lets apply Walter's rule of six, or at least emotion, with just one cut in a short film.
Below is an interesting animated short film, Reach.
It is cut very much, to me at least, along Murch's Rule of Six.
We cut from a wide of the window to a wide of the room. Now, you could suggest this is just because this is a well worn way for a film maker to establish a location. It is. But it could have been done differently. The film might have started on a close up of the broken little creature. It didn't. I think why is because by putting the little robot, small, in the middle of the frame, gives the character and his situation an emotional resonance. He is alone. It is dark in the room. He is (if you analyse the frame very closely, like an editor should! This type of analysis is similar to poetry, it is about inferring meaning from subtle things like colour and composition)
Sorry, he is caught, halfways between darkness and light. Look at the image. One side is utterly black, the other white. This, if you've watched the whole film, is also really what the film is about. No matter how hard you try, and if you succeed in doing something great, we all are, ultimately, doomed to die.
It's a tradegy and very poignant if you let sink in the story.
So, the editor has lead, wholeheartedly, with emotion in this very first cut. He is trying to reach us by taking us into the world of the story through the world of this character.
Have a go yourself with the next couple of cuts.
So, here's an idea.
Take a scene from a film.
Most films have around thirty to forty scenes, so it should last about three to four minutes.
Analyse the scene and see where you can apply Walter's Rule of Six.
Walter's Number 1 rule is this: EMOTION.
Prove it. Fair enough. There are countless examples of films with continuity errors that you simply won't notice because you are taken up with the emotion of the film.
I found this one on wiki, may my god preserve me.
A good example of a continuity error is in the film Braveheart with Mel Gibson. In one of the battle scenes you see William Wallace (Mel Gibson) and his army of Scottish rebels charging into battle with the English. At one moment, you see him with no weapon. Then you see him with his claymore in hand. Then again he has no weapon. Then a pick axe. And when he finally closes in on the enemy, you see him draw his claymore from his back. This often goes unnoticed by audiences and it does not cause any real problems. The whole idea of the scene is to show the rebels fiercely charging into battle, and these errors do not actually interfere with that
Anyway, back to the applying theory.
Lets apply Walter's rule of six, or at least emotion, with just one cut in a short film.
Below is an interesting animated short film, Reach.
It is cut very much, to me at least, along Murch's Rule of Six.
We cut from a wide of the window to a wide of the room. Now, you could suggest this is just because this is a well worn way for a film maker to establish a location. It is. But it could have been done differently. The film might have started on a close up of the broken little creature. It didn't. I think why is because by putting the little robot, small, in the middle of the frame, gives the character and his situation an emotional resonance. He is alone. It is dark in the room. He is (if you analyse the frame very closely, like an editor should! This type of analysis is similar to poetry, it is about inferring meaning from subtle things like colour and composition)
Sorry, he is caught, halfways between darkness and light. Look at the image. One side is utterly black, the other white. This, if you've watched the whole film, is also really what the film is about. No matter how hard you try, and if you succeed in doing something great, we all are, ultimately, doomed to die.
It's a tradegy and very poignant if you let sink in the story.
So, the editor has lead, wholeheartedly, with emotion in this very first cut. He is trying to reach us by taking us into the world of the story through the world of this character.
Have a go yourself with the next couple of cuts.
Walter Murch and the Rule of Six
The last video clip introduces Walter Murch, it also introduces Edwin Porter, but we'll come on to that in a moment.
I think it's more important to learn what makes good editing, before you then see what you can glean from history and theory.
Murch made editing theory very simple.
He suggested a Rule of Six. The first four of which you'll have no problem understanding. The last couple are to do with how the pictures relate to one another on the screen and how 'reality' is maintained by a continuity in the spatial relationships between images.
Boring. Well...
I think it's more important to learn what makes good editing, before you then see what you can glean from history and theory.
Murch made editing theory very simple.
He suggested a Rule of Six. The first four of which you'll have no problem understanding. The last couple are to do with how the pictures relate to one another on the screen and how 'reality' is maintained by a continuity in the spatial relationships between images.
Boring. Well...
What is editing?
The best way, I find, of trying to define something is to write your own definition.
This, based on the films I've edited, is mine.
Editing is the creative process of finding a story and making it as interesting as possible.
There are much better definitions out there, I'm sure.
Others like: "On its most fundamental level, film editing is the art, technique, and practice of assembling shots into a coherent whole."
But I find that a bit wordy and slightly cold.
You know you have to put shots together, that's a given, what you maybe didn't know is that you have to FIND a story. And that story may not be the one written on the script.
As you know, a script doesn't say anywhere near as much as a picture, which contains thousands of extra pieces of information you can't write down (facial movements, the intonation of the actor's voice, the colour of the sky, what is in the background, who is looking at whom)
The second part, making it as interesting as possible, is how you tell that story. How you present the story, how you engage the audience.
The question of what editing is, can't really be divorced from what is good editing. One is the other.
Which leads nicely into Walter Murch.
Who, as a world famous editor, has also written some great stuff on what makes great editing.
But first, here's an intro video of what editing is about.
As one editor says, "editing is what you are always looking at"
This, based on the films I've edited, is mine.
Editing is the creative process of finding a story and making it as interesting as possible.
There are much better definitions out there, I'm sure.
Others like: "On its most fundamental level, film editing is the art, technique, and practice of assembling shots into a coherent whole."
But I find that a bit wordy and slightly cold.
You know you have to put shots together, that's a given, what you maybe didn't know is that you have to FIND a story. And that story may not be the one written on the script.
As you know, a script doesn't say anywhere near as much as a picture, which contains thousands of extra pieces of information you can't write down (facial movements, the intonation of the actor's voice, the colour of the sky, what is in the background, who is looking at whom)
The second part, making it as interesting as possible, is how you tell that story. How you present the story, how you engage the audience.
The question of what editing is, can't really be divorced from what is good editing. One is the other.
Which leads nicely into Walter Murch.
Who, as a world famous editor, has also written some great stuff on what makes great editing.
But first, here's an intro video of what editing is about.
As one editor says, "editing is what you are always looking at"
The Relationship Between Editing and The final film
It's interesting to note that over the recent history of the Oscars, two thirds of the films that picked up the Best Picture Oscar also picked up the Best Editing Oscar.
Editing has been called the 'engine' of film making and the fact above seems to prove it.
You might not be able to take something not very good and turn it into a masterpiece in the editing suite. However, you can take someone decent and lift it up for the audience.
Here's an interesting (but very light) clip from a seasoned Hollywood editor talking about the five 2007 Oscar editing nominations.
He mentions a number of things which I find interesting. He talks about the relationship between the editor and the Director. He discusses how an editor can really turn a film into something very special (in the case of In the Wild - if you haven't seen it, please do. It's excellent.)
I can't embed the video, but control click it to open it up in a new tab.
http://www.slatev.com/video/oscars-obscure-category/
Editing has been called the 'engine' of film making and the fact above seems to prove it.
You might not be able to take something not very good and turn it into a masterpiece in the editing suite. However, you can take someone decent and lift it up for the audience.
Here's an interesting (but very light) clip from a seasoned Hollywood editor talking about the five 2007 Oscar editing nominations.
He mentions a number of things which I find interesting. He talks about the relationship between the editor and the Director. He discusses how an editor can really turn a film into something very special (in the case of In the Wild - if you haven't seen it, please do. It's excellent.)
I can't embed the video, but control click it to open it up in a new tab.
http://www.slatev.com/video/oscars-obscure-category/
Video Editing Theory: the Beginning
Up till now you've been learning by doing.
We've only really touched on editing theory and editing history and not in any great depth.
Will it make a difference to the quality of your editing to look back at the major movements and developments in the craft - the answer is a definite yes.
In the following bits of blog we can read, watch and learn about the major changes in editing and in by doing so you can pick up a whole bunch of tricks from the past masters.
Most of the modern films you watch today are being edited with constant reference to what has come before.
It might seem new to have 37 edits in just one minute of film (the first of the Bourne films had this mind bending number of cuts, and it is a lot) but the style of cutting owes itself to Cinema Verite, or the Russian Sergi Eisenstein and his Theory of Editing, albeit cranked up in a new way.
The Bourne Films (I could only watch one, the others gave me a sore head the editing was so quick) isn't a bad place to finish this first blog.
This style of film making, hand held, provoking and aggressive, hallmarks of Verite, has become very popular and I dare say in a few of your films you'll be using a similar technique.
Here's the Bourne fight scene from the first movie. Check out the number of cuts.
Go to around 1:10 which is where the fight begins.
Here's John Wayne fighting in Oklahoma. Count those cuts. 1943 vs 2004.
Here's an interview with Christopher Rousse who edited the later Bourne films and United 93.
http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/currentissue/8546.html
We've only really touched on editing theory and editing history and not in any great depth.
Will it make a difference to the quality of your editing to look back at the major movements and developments in the craft - the answer is a definite yes.
In the following bits of blog we can read, watch and learn about the major changes in editing and in by doing so you can pick up a whole bunch of tricks from the past masters.
Most of the modern films you watch today are being edited with constant reference to what has come before.
It might seem new to have 37 edits in just one minute of film (the first of the Bourne films had this mind bending number of cuts, and it is a lot) but the style of cutting owes itself to Cinema Verite, or the Russian Sergi Eisenstein and his Theory of Editing, albeit cranked up in a new way.
The Bourne Films (I could only watch one, the others gave me a sore head the editing was so quick) isn't a bad place to finish this first blog.
This style of film making, hand held, provoking and aggressive, hallmarks of Verite, has become very popular and I dare say in a few of your films you'll be using a similar technique.
Here's the Bourne fight scene from the first movie. Check out the number of cuts.
Go to around 1:10 which is where the fight begins.
Here's John Wayne fighting in Oklahoma. Count those cuts. 1943 vs 2004.
Here's an interview with Christopher Rousse who edited the later Bourne films and United 93.
http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/currentissue/8546.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)