Thanks for clarifying this point. So, in a sense, 'invisible' editing
and the reel changes in Rope are at opposite ends: while in the
former the cuts demand being perceived in order not to be paid
attention to, in the latter the reel changes are meant not to be
perceived and hence are highly detectable.
H
>
>
>
> Problem of *invisible cut* is something completely different. It is
> not a matter of 'detectability', perceptual registering, but a
> matter of attention, of attentional prominence (or attentional
> 'backgroundness'), of attention allocation. Now, one precondition
> for a continuity cut to pass unnoticed (to be attentionally
> suppressed) is that IT IS JUST BIG ENOUGH, with a change of viewing
> angle bigger then, say, 30 degrees, possibly accompanied by an
> emphasized change of shot scale. If the change of viewing angle
> between the two neighboring shots over the cut is to small (and/or
> not combined with a big enough change of a shot scale) it becomes
> typically QUITE NOTICABLE (momentarily attentionally foregrounded)
> - it becomes a jump cut. So, clear detectability (perceptual
> registering) of a change of view over the cut is one precondition
> for a smooth continuity cut, and the regular continuity cut is
> wrongly characterized as *invisible*, it may only be
> ‘unnoticeable’ (not being paid attention to, but being still
> perceptually registered). *Invisibility* (actual perceptual
> nondetectability) of a regular cut within a continuity editing is a
> myth. It is our very 'natural vision' that requires noticeable
> change of viewing point over a cut in order to enable us NOT TO PAY
> ATTENTION to this very change of view (alas, other complex
> conditions has to be fulfilled too, e.g. the scenic, diegetic,
> events has to be enough attention absorbing not to permit
> distraction; the change of view has to be motivated – given reason
> for, etc.).
>
>
>
> So, *invisibility cut* does not have anything to do with a single
> shot (one take) film, only with multiple shot films, but then
> it is not *invisibility* we are dealing with, but with
> different directions and degrees of attention allocation.
>
>
>
*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|