editing: do ya like it hard and fast, or slow and tender? ;)

[onetwothreefour]

no, you haven't accidentally stumbled into slr...

my recent re-viewing of romeo + juliet made me think of this. in general, i prefer a film which lingers. long shots which allow the actors to get comfortable within their characterisations, and slower camera movements which let the audience observe the scenery. sometimes, i'm even so pompous as to actually consider these films above those edited together a little more quickly, under the auspices of "artistry". generally, these kind of films have been considered more artistic (it all started with jean "son-of-the-painter" renoir, mostly) for years and years, and it's not often that people question the idea.

in fact, it is often heard in cinema-loving circles that people like darren aronofsky (pi, requiem for a dream) and baz luhrman (r+j, moulin rouge and strictly ballroom), despite being acclaimed to an extent, are not quite so valued as the eminent hitchock (rope is the best example of his distaste for edits), david lynch, jean renoir and the rest.

but even though i've been guilty of this in the past, i'm starting to get away from it - each has their place. i still hold a *preference* for less edits in a film, but i don't devalue anything else which doesn't do that instead. i also really liked the way fast editing techniques were used in the films spun (to give a sense of the super-fast methed-up world of the tweakers) and go (which gave the film much of its urgency and added to the streaky aesthetic).

what are your thoughts, or examples?

 

[Raz]

I dunno, I think it really depends on the type of movie. Hitchcock films are a great example of unobtrusive editing, letting a scene play itself out without too much (if any) chopping up or artificial boundaries forced on it.

On the other hand, take something like Resident Evil or Mortal Kombat, where you want choppy because it maintains a fast pace and simulates the whole video game thing really well.

So yeah, I'd have to say a bit of both..

 

[wanderlust]

it goes with the beat of the movie
each movie has its own heart beat... its own living pulse pushing forward, leading you quickly breathing into the next scene... perhaps even ripping you from in to the other.... or letting you savor the end note of a scene and lets the taste of each linger
even better is when the overusage of the two is not done but both are used in the same film. when the suspenceful scenes are not rushed in and out of and the love/intergrel ones are not slowly lost into the next moment. the combonation can be inviting and fun if not used conventionaly or overdone

 

[Pander Bear]

I'm a big exponent of editing as the force for story and characterization, and I like it layered on real thick! Nothing is better than a kubrick long, quiet shot, or a frentic Aaronofsky cut/montage. When a director uses one, its called his style, when he uses both, its called overwrought. Whatever 8(.

 

[onetwothreefour]

^^^ don't be so critical. i'm trying to promote discussion. if you read my post properly, it pretty clearly states that i actually DO want to be open minded

 

[diegoblunt]

im fine with either .. the important thing is that its done well

 

[onetwothreefour]

I don't have to applaud your efforts simply because you're trying to create an intelligent discussion...

correct, but my point was that i wasn't being close-minded.

in general, i prefer a film which lingers. long shots which allow the actors to get comfortable within their characterisations, and slower camera movements which let the audience observe the scenery.

I find this comment to be utterly ridiculous. I'm not just being critical, your attitude towards film really annoys me..

Mainly because you're disrespecting the artist's work by over simplifying the purpose of pace and the intentions of said artist in using cinematographic techniques.

no, i'm not. i'm making a sweeping generalisation because of the nature of my discussion here. i didn't say (nor mean) that i will always prefer a film with longer shot lengths and slower camera movements; it's just a point that if i step back and take a look at the films that are in, say, my top ten or twenty, these are in the majority. requiem for a dream and romeo + juliet are also two of my favourite films. saying i seem to have a preference for one type of editing technique does not mean that i automatically exclude any other film from my tastes.

nor am i "disrespecting the artist's work by over simplifying"; rather, i'm making some broad statements about a body of work that spans all the films i've ever seen. if i name a specific film, i will give a specific example of why i like or dislike it. but i don't need to if i qualify my comments as general feelings on the corpus.

shots which allow the actors to get comfortable within their characterisations, and slower camera movements which let the audience observe the scenery

Neither of these comments make any sense to me...

First off, this thread is about editing. How does slow editing effect the actor's ability to emmerse themselves in a part?

perhaps i could have articulated this better.

when you get to watch an entire scene in just the one shot, it is often that there is a consistency in the performance that (can be, but isn't always) missing in a scene that is edited together. obviously i realise that most scenes will still be filmed in large chunks, regardless of how many times it will be cut apart in the final product, but this also means that the scene might consist of, say, take 01 + take 17 + take 12 + take 4, rather than the consistent take through-out, which can, sometimes -imo- serve to disrupt the rythm.

i realise that's still a very convuluted explanation, but i hope it still makes some kind of sense. i'll be happy to try again then.

godard's latest work, notre musique (with the last tracking shot along the riverbanks) is a good example of what i mean by "slower camera movements ... [to] observe the scenery", btw. we just get to watch, and take everything in. it's brilliant

Secondly, the pace of a pan or a tilt could be intended to effect mood, build suspense, mystery, juxtapose the tempo of another, more frantic scene, etc... It isn't so we can see the trees in the background.

and you use the word "could". i never said that it would never do that, just that sometimes a camera movement is used to observe the scenery (sue me, i like a lot of french films which spend a lot of time building mood *through* observation of the scenery). it's not a mutually exclusive point that i'm making here.

Hitchock obviously doesn't dislike edits.

That is absurd.

Think about how many shots he planned to be in the shower scene of psycho for example... and the carousel climax of strangers on a train...

He is an experimental film-maker and Rope was the only film that he tried to create with minimal editing techniques.

This isn't an indication of his "distaste for edits".[/B]

i didn't mean in terms of his entire career. rope was the only example i gave, and the only example i meant if for.

oh, and i think he was just as interested in the *sound* of psycho (in the shower scene) to affect montage, more than just the pure montage itself.

i hope this answered some, at least, of your doubts.

 

[mariacallas]

lol....i like a bit of both.....kthksbye

 

[PULS8R]

i take it any way it comes. the movie can be slow mostly and a few quickies chucked in if it suits and ill be happy. Depends on the movie and if it suits it or not. I find most movies do it pretty well.