The initial problem was to name films in one shot. But very soon the problem
of identifying what to count as a cut (an inter shot transition) appeared -
whether the spliced place in a film strip that is not perceptually
detectable for regular viewing (as some cuts in Rope and one in Frenzy are)
can be counted as 'edit' or not. My answer was that undetectable splice may
not be counted as 'edit' - that we keep the term 'edit' for phenomenally
detectable splices (cuts).
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.
- I think the initial question was about films which didn't have cuts.
I'm a bit confused as to how we're now discussing films with numerous
cuts. This seems highly tendentious to me:
"similarly "invisible editing" is a set of techniques for making the
viewer not notice the myriad ways in which cinematic narration differs
from natural vision – and insofar as a single shot replicates the
positionality of natural vision it involves no invisible or continuity
editing [even when it uses invisible cuts]"
Are we claiming that the *purpose* of continuity editing was to "make
the viewer not notice", or is that just the effect? I tend to side
with Jean Mitry in any case: most viewers are aware enough that
cinematic narration differs from natural vision. Even the single shot
differs from natural vision.
*
*
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]
**
|