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] **