 |
 |
For Vertov, all aspects of film production, including pre-production, were editorial, Nicky Hamlyn. On 1 Apr 2009, at 16:16, Catalin Brylla wrote: > I don't agree that editing is (or can be) a "neutral device". > Editing itself, does not have to contain any physical cut. The > choice to have a long take, which relies on mise-en-scene for story- > telling, IS an editing choice. I am using the term "editing" in a > broader sense, encompassing the post- and pre-production stage. > After all, juxtaposing scenes within a narrative is an act of > editing, so editing starts as soon as the story-telling starts. > > Wikipedia (sorry to quote wikipedia, but it seems appropriate in > this case): > > Editing is the process of preparing language, images, sound, video, > or film [for presentation to an audience] through correction, > condensation, organization, and other modifications in various media. > > I do believe, however, that "invisible continuity editing" CAN and > DOES give meaning to mise-en-scene. A simple dialogue scene can be > cut in 100 different ways, each way altering the audience's > perception about the characters. Also, continuity editing can > enhance (or subdue) acting skills (to a certain degree). A simple > example is the creation of pauses in a shot-reverse-shot scenario in > order to emphasise reaction time, silences, motivations etc, os > using reaction shots that might not have been reactions to a > particular line, at the right time. These alone can alter meaning, > which is NOT inherent in the mise-en-scene. > > --- On Wed, 4/1/09, Frank, Michael <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: Frank, Michael <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Editing, Style and Authorship > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 4:23 PM > > never having touched any editing equipment – and having virtually no > sense of how the techniques and technologies work – i may be well > out of my depth here, but it does seem to me that this conversation > regularly loses focus because of a failure to distinguish between > editing as a more or less neutral device designed to communicate > most efficiently and clearly an idea that exists apart from the > editing, or a mise-en-scene that already embodies meaning and which > thus just needs to be made available to the viewer [of which > invisible or continuity editing is of course the poster child] -- > and, on the other hand, editing that is designed to create a meaning > that is not in the mise-en-scene itself [of which the kuleshov > effect may stand as a representative example] > > > perhaps an example can clarify somewhat: in hitchcock’s shadow of a > doubt there is a sequence in which the phallic uncle charlie is > meeting his innocent adolescent niece at a train station . . . > hitchcock presents the meeting through a series of alternating > reverse shots, each showing one of the characters approaching the > other and the camera . . . the meeting itself, however, is > presented frontally, with each character entering the frame from an > opposite side . . . the general editing system in place is quite > conventional, but still has to be executed through specific > decisions about where to start and end each shot and exactly when to > cut to the frontal shot . . . hitchcock [or his editor, though i > doubt it] decides to cut to the frontal shot before either character > is in it, so we get an essentially empty frame – and then uncle > charlie enters swinging his cane so that the cane enters the frame > first, and at an egregiously phallic angle . . . > > > here the editing was not merely a matter of showing the meeting in > the most efficacious way; clearly these editing choices were by > design – and it was almost certainly hitchcock’s design, even if an > editor was entrusted with executing it according to the hitchcockian > plan > > > in short, we need to differentiate between editing that serves > merely to execute a design, and editing which is also designing and > creating > > > mike > > > From: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > On Behalf Of Catalin Brylla > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:49 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Editing, Style and Authorship > > > It is true that there is a big lack on texts on editors, or on > editing in general. In the current Sight&Sound there is a feature on > cinematography, so I hope they will do one on editing. > > I think the reason is, as you say, that editing is attributed to the > director (either at the storyboard stage, or at the postproduction > stage). People forget, though that many directors are producer- > turned directors, or directors coming from theatre. In those cases, > directors are more likely to give the editor more leeway. I have > worked with directors who would come only at certain stages to the > editing room and just look at and discuss changes, rather than > telling me what to do in the first place. This is especially true > for documentaries, where the director (unless s/he is an experienced > editor) HAS to rely on the editor's story-telling skills. > Unfortunately, documentary editors are even more overlooked than > fiction editors. > > > > * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion 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] > ** > > * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion 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] > ** > > * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion 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] > ** * * 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] **