"editors cannot afford to have
a personal style"
i don't think this is completely so. i think that any editor worth her/his salt
needs to keep a little personal style in reserve. then when those impasses and
disastrous scenes arrive s/he has a whole new toolkit to offer the producer
and director who are standing at the door of the edit suite with an armful of
rushes and faces longer and paler than 'the scream'
"primarily because the editor's work a) primarily consists of what you DON'T
see on the screen"
i have never been a fan of this philosophy. what is always startlingly lacking
from this popular attitude is the truth that editing is the most obvious and
interruptive of all the aspects of filmmaking - followed closely (in my book) by
the choreographed camera. if this addage were qualified to 'consists of what
we deliberately ignore on the screen' then i would subscribe, but the idea that
editing is invisible is just silly. in my life no crisis ever fades to black to give me
a moments pause in order to recover and contemplate... i have never heard
anyone claim that good writing has invisible chapter divisions.
"and b) is so closely tied to the requirements of a particular
film project and the wishes of the respective director that it would
be counterproductive."
this is completely true. in my experience the director may or may not have a
vast amount of input but either way, in all seriousness, the film does reveal
itself to you through the process of editing, at least, that is certainly how it
feels. so while there are conventions and rules, their judicious and uncritical
application can be counterproductive to the discovery of the film within the
rushes.
"And yet, I remember reading somewhere - maybe in
one of William Goldman's books (don't quote me on this) - that Dede
Allen was the preferred editor as far as working with a moviola was
concerned"
that could quite possibly be due to the shiva-like arm action and physical
dexterity required to navigate your way around, over and through a moviola.
flatbeds are tricky. hand cutting and cementing requires serious concentration
and the ability to hold your breath for long periods of time. often a director will
nominate an editor as they have a professional history and it is useful in the
editor-director relationship; it may be a director wants a particular editor
because there is a degree of style in their approach inasmuch as that editor
thinks to structure, cut or hold a shot, scene or act with a balance or
imbalance that the given director does not feel capable of replicating. if
nothing else, a good editor is a good therapist and a director simply likes the
style of therapy he or she knows you will bring to their project.
*
*
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 online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|