The Eye is Quicker Read online

  Editing lends an important hand in the fragment-fading process of good filmmaking. It is the foundation of Dmytryk’s depiction of editing as “the essence of motion pictures.”

  Students — and young filmmakers — are inclined to be absorbed with cut after solo cut. I would not expect the earliest spotlight on the editor’s work to be any different. So yes, keep an eye on the cuts, but if you follow the suggestions in this chapter, you will see — as quick as your eye — that every single cut can be made inconspicuous.

  HINT: I did not propose a dissolve as a ‘fix.’

  In time you’ll find that ‘winning cuts’ are so simple to accomplish that their satisfying pleasure will be fleeting. You will come ‘to see’ that they are not the editor’s definitive achievement. The triumph is to be found in the sensations and unity of the entire film.

  THREE

  editing with

  two left feet

  “I never cut for matches, I cut for impact.”

  — Sam O’Steen

  The prominence of the cut, and the determined security to cut on action explain the inescapable lure to match action.

  Let’s remember the “Quick Head Turn,” and the effective extended cut. Wanting to match this swift movement across a cut originates in a common and curious assumption: Editors strive to duplicate real life; consequently, time and movement across a cut should be a picture of authenticity. The student filmmaker takes a count of frames from the shots showing the head turn, and divides by two. If it takes six frames for a “Quick Head Turn,” half of the movement, or three frames of action can be held to the Outgoing cut, and three frames of the completed action can begin the Incoming. This should deliver authenticity, and a ‘good cut.’ Most often it doesn’t. Remember “mental hiccups”?

  Let’s not consider a “Quick Head Turn” that takes five frames — I don’t do fractions. First of all, film is not reality. It is ‘life’ presented in a staccato start/stop cinematographic pulse. Several set-ups (or angles) are filmed. The actions (and dialogue) are repeated in each set-up. The recurring actions are neither precise in time nor gesture. If you take into account the assortment of angles, camera distances, and lens choices on an action, you’ll see that actions can be positioned in a wide range of frame sectors, and in an array of sizes.

  TIP & HINT: Don’t disregard the effects of film’s two-dimensional presentation.

  If your singular concern is to cut on action, you might be ‘closing your eyes’ to the necessities of the scene. Is the scene about a “Quick Head Turn”?

  HINT: What about the comprehensive plan of the scene, sequence, or the entirety of the film?

  TIP: Think big — from extensive to vast. It is best not to begin with a concentration on cuts. You can double — and then some — the actions across cuts. This will allow you a diversity of opportunities (later) when the needs of the scene are unmistakable.

  You might discover that you don’t have to cut on action at all. You can let the “Quick Head Turn,” (or any action) be completed in an ongoing shot. I’ve heard that John Huston would admonish editors who took time ‘matching’ actions — especially actions of someone sitting or standing — across a cut. He’d point out, “This scene is not about sitting or standing!”

  All right! You are — regardless of John Huston — determined to cut across the “Quick Head Turn.” If you try to match the action, after dividing the frame count by two, and halving the action on either side, you will, in all probability, be facing a “mental hiccup,” because — remember — the quicker the action the more its Outgoing movement is needed before the cut. This ‘mismatch’ will likely appear as a ‘match.’ But! Frequently something else will ‘trouble’ your eye. Depending upon the shifting position within the frame, or the variability in scale, the cut may ‘insist’ upon a further extending, or sometimes a compressing of the action.

  A woman is sitting on a park bench. After some seconds she stands. Here is a fine instance to identify the influence of film frame location on action and cuts. By the way, this is an example from a student’s film. There are two compositions (set-ups) depicting the action. [Figure 3.1]

  Figure 3.1

  A Medium Shot preceded a Long Shot

  To cut during the standing action, so that it ‘matches’ across the cut, the student figured: If I calculate the distance from the bench to the woman’s bottom I can match precisely across the cut. How far is the woman’s bottom from the bench in the Outgoing, and therefore, where must the bottom be in the Incoming in order for there to be accuracy of action? The student did this calculation — quite precisely — and made the cut. He was baffled when it didn’t work.

  The student’s cut didn’t work because our eyes watch the woman’s face, not her bottom. When the woman starts to stand, the key to the cut is the reference of her face — her eyes — within the film frame.

  HINT: A person on screen will be the focal point — the eyes’ focus. A face takes preference. The eyes take greater preference. If you ‘find’ the focal point you’ll ‘find the cut.’

  We are watching the woman’s face throughout her upward movement. The film frame has a Top and Bottom. This Bottom and (in this example) the Top are most important. The first shot is a Medium Shot. In this composing the woman is already near, or at, the frame’s Top; when the woman stands, her face (nearly) disappears in the Outgoing frame. The student’s initial cut, however accurate the position of the woman’s bottom, had the Incoming Long Shot portraying the woman’s face well below the Top of the frame. [Figure 3.2] The Incoming shot ‘persuaded’ our eyes that the woman’s face had moved downward — because it did — within the scope of the frame.

  Figure 3.2

  For an instant the woman appears to re-sit

  TIP: It is best to avoid having the eyes (we are watching) clear the frame — at least not both. If the Outgoing frame of the woman standing doesn’t retain her eyes, a kind of “mental hiccup” occurs: an established focal point vanishes across the cut.

  Before solving the ‘Bottom and Bench’ editing puzzle, let me give a couple of examples of maintaining the focal point across a cut: The Butcher Changes a Light Bulb scene, from an SVA thesis film, Alicia Was Fainting. The butcher, atop a ladder, replaces a bulb in the freezer compartment’s light fixture. He tosses the burned-out bulb to Alicia — his apprentice — who is standing at the ladder’s base. A cut was made across the action of the falling bulb. [Figure 3.3] It did not matter where, in real-life time or space, the bulb should be, but only that it is discernible across the cut, and in relative proximity within the scope of the Outgoing and Incoming frames.

  Figure 3.3

  No matter how brief the time on screen, the eye ‘catches’ the bulb.

  Alicia Was Fainting

  Director/Editor Núria Olivé-Bellés

  The next example involves the magical disappearance of the protagonist. Maya Arrives at the Lakeside Cottage scene from the thesis film, Nowhere, Now Here. A Long Shot from inside the automobile that has brought Maya, lets us see the cottage, and the attorney who has been awaiting her arrival. Maya and her driver exit the auto — the camera is behind them — and both walk toward the attorney. Initially, a cut was made — after several beats — to a Medium Long Shot from behind the attorney. [Figure 3.4] The initial consideration in selecting a cut point was the ‘real-life’ position of the three characters in the setting.

  Figure 3.4

  Something peculiar happened. Maya vanished!

  Nowhere, Now Here

  Director, Sako Pajari; Editor, Zohra Zaka

  It was essential to lose a few frames on the Incoming shot so as to reveal — at least a bit of— Maya’s face, coming from behind the attorney, and have the three characters ‘spotted’ immediately — especially Maya, the focal point. [Figure 3.5] This cut worked.

  Figure 3.5

  We can continue to see our protagonist across the cut

  The solution to the ‘Bottom and Bench’ puzzle was simple
: Since the scope of the frame, its Top and Bottom; its Left and Right, presents a better bearing for cuts across action than does real life, we intentionally ‘mismatched’ the (woman’s) bottom’s distance from the bench with an adjustment which made the cut at an earlier moment in the initial action, so that the woman’s face was not as close to the frame’s Top on the Outgoing — and her eyes never exited the frame. We made the cut later in the action of the Incoming shot, which brought the woman’s face closer to the frame’s Top at the cut point. [Figure 3.6] It is not required to tally the exact distance to the frame’s Top.

  Figure 3.6

  There is some leeway: a sort of grace space.

  There are three divergent, yet interrelated, models that address the proposition, forget matching action. First, there are some things that cannot be expected to match, no matter how precise the production. Second, there are some things the director will intentionally not want to produce as a match. And third, finding the requirements of a scene frequently requires the editor to disregard matching altogether, integrating action and dialogue within daring mismatches that are ‘unseen’ by the audience, and most crucial, capture the absorbing essentials of the scene.

  Let me suggest that you screen Little Big Man for the first two models:

  1. Jack and Mrs. Pendrake in the Brothel scene. Keep your eyes on the beaded curtain during the seduction. [Figure 3.7] It moves at varying rates — at times nearly stopping — only to be followed by a cut showing it moving swiftly.

  Figure 3.7

  Continuous bead sounds, and other-than the curtain-focal

  points ‘hide’ the mismatches

  2. Jack Returns to “Grandfather” scene. Jack leans closer to Grandfather’s face upon learning he’s blind. Yet, on the following cut (from) behind Jack, his position has not changed. [Figure 3.8] If the director had required Dustin Hoffman (Jack) to lean closer to Chief George (Grandfather), so as to match the reverse camera set-up, Dustin Hoffman would have blocked Chief George’s face — rendering the shot useless.

  Figure 3.8

  The ‘mismatch’ makes the shot useable

  Remember the “Quick Head-Turn” in the same scene? [Figure 3.9] Watch Chief George across that cut. Look at the Chief’s right arm — yet another mismatch — but your eyes favor the movement of the head-turn. Here is a good reason to have cut on action.

  Figure 3.9

  Movement is eye-cateher is focal point

  Screen The French Connection for an exquisite example of the last model:

  3. ‘Popeye’ Doyle and Russo Rough Up a Suspect scene. Undercover cop Doyle wears a Santa suit; Russo is disguised as a hot dog vendor. Keep your eye on Russo as he moves about the alleyway, [Figure 3.10] disappearing from the frame in one shot, only to reappear in the next.

  Figure 3.10

  Isn’t this fantastic?

  The vital stratagem used in the success of the Doyle and Russo scene is the meticulous treatment of the Suspect’s face — especially his eyes: The Suspect’s eyes ‘respond’ to Doyle and Russo’s Dialogue. The eyes quickly direct the audience’s ‘focus,’ and acceptance — motivating the cuts — of an otherwise nonexistent continuity.

  Model #3 can also be viewed in Jack Returns to “Grandfather” scene. Watch Chief George through all the cuts: His actions (hands up; hands down; hands moving; hands still) and dialogue synchronization (lips moving in speech, sometimes chewing; sometimes not) nearly never match. [Figure 3.11] This example is the more common form of action/synchronized sound ‘mismatches,’ which doesn’t preclude successful editing.

  Figure 3.11

  A creative necessity

  HINT: More to come on the creatively expansive ‘nature’ of synchronized sound.

  For a perfect illustration of ‘mismatching’ brilliance, boldness, and the editor’s ability to ‘find’ a moment’s emotional essence, screen Frank and Family ‘Celebrate’ His Graduation from the Police Academy scene, from Serpico. After the ceremony, the family gathers outside the Police Academy. When they see Frank, [Figure 3.12] one of his brothers-in-law shouts, “Frankieeeee!” The brother-in-law’s different arm gesture — along with “ieee!” — crosses the cut. No match at all, but undoubtedly the spirit of a celebratory gathering.

  Figure 3.12

  “Cut for proper values rather than for proper matches.”

  — Ed Dmytryk

  Which foot follows the left when a person walks? The right foot is a good bet in real life, but in film the question is not answerable — until a cut is joined. Determinations in movement; frame sector; focal point; and the values of the scene, can guide the film editor to decide on a cut — a very fine cut — describing a walker with rhythmic charm, stepping left, right, left, left!

  HINT: More later about rhythm; with perhaps a bit of charm.

  Good editors are not to be discovered among those who have a shrewdness for determining — within centimeters — the incremental movements of bottoms, bulbs, and turning heads. If meticulous exactness were required, film editing would not be possible; and if editing were impossible, making movies would be out of the question.

  FOUR

  small time

  operators

  “The development of film technique has

  been primarily the development of editing.”

  — Ernest Lindgren

  Now that we’ve put Matching Action ‘behind’ us — so to speak — let’s look at several approaches to purposeful mismatching. Interestingly, there are more than a few regularly employed which are so wholly accepted that you might wonder why anyone ever thinks matching action matters a whit.

  First, let’s get video editing clichés out of the way: the doubling, tripling, quadrupling — or even the quintupling — of an identical shot, and the ‘every other cut goes to black’ structure, which allows Outgoing and Incoming cuts of any kind to go anywhere, at anytime. These maneuvers are among the instigators that link sugary sweet cereal and film editing. Although deliberate, they are not so much ‘purposeful’ as ‘purposeless’ affect.

  The approaches that I’m talking about are genuine and effective techniques to handle brief — to very brief — references in time. They fall into two categories: perceptible and imperceptible structures.

  These structures are frequently utilized, often integrated, and offer creative promise to ‘mismatched’ cuts.

  Perceptible Structure:

  1. Jump Cut(s)

  2. Overlapping Action(s)

  Imperceptible Structure:

  1. Jump Cut

  2. Protracted Action(s).

  The classic Jump Cut occurs when one or several frame(s) are deleted from an otherwise continuous camera run or shot. It is often employed in a series. Screen Frank Galvin Trashes His Office scene from The Verdict. Drunk, publicly embarrassed, in despair, and angry, Galvin ‘destroys’ his law office. The throwing and breaking of items is displayed with perceptible structured cuts: Jumps in Actions — the ‘gaps’ in time — are obvious. [Figure 4.1] What is skillfully effective is the asymmetrical approach to the Jump Cuts: They are integrated with a more traditional cut.

  Figure 4.1

  A good example of cutting for value and impact — not matches

  HINT: Keep Asymmetrical in mind!

  Sergei Eisenstein frequently made use of the other model of perceptible structures: Overlapping Actions. For a couple of examples of Eisenstein’s handiwork screen The Battle on Ice scene, from Alexander Nevsky, and The Livestock Slaughter scene, from Strike.

  Alexander Nevsky. As the mounted German Knights are about to clash with the Russian peasant army, Eisenstein uses multiple cuts of the Russians’ lowering wooden staffs, used as spikes against the mounted knights. The lowering, and aiming action, is repeated, but from numerous perspectives — showing different segments of the Russian defensive line. It is clear by way of the repetitiveness, that the action — and time — is being overlapped. [Figure 4.2] The effect is to have the audience hold its breath — or gulp
forcefully — in expectation of the powerful collision of armies.

  Figure 4.2

  Strike: Three shots capture a repeated action at a slaughterhouse. [Figure 4.3] A butcher mightily jabs a sharp instrument to the head of a steer, dropping it to the ground n preparation for bleeding and butchering the animal.

  Figure 4.3

  Perceptible structures are especially common in Eisenstein’s films. Ed Dmytryk, in On Film Editing, deftly describes a scene from The Old and the New, in which a Soviet government instructor lifts a cloth — in multiple overlapping action shots — revealing a mechanical cream separator in front of an audience of peasant farmers, “with the flourish of a magician.”

  Jump Cuts are, by their very definition, expected to be perceptible; but Jump Cuts can be utilized in the second model: imperceptible structures.

  There are times when too many beats — too much time — elapse between preferred actions in a continuous camera run.

  HINT: I’ve mentioned beats here, and earlier. Lots more ahead.

  The editor wants both (or all) of the actions; doesn’t want to ‘play’ all the time between actions; and doesn’t want to use any other camera set-up depicting the actions. Eliminating frames following the end of one preferred action so that the other occurs more quickly — at your command — does not have to result in a perceptible structure Jump Cut.