You’re not the only one who considers my words “Greek”. I guess I make films the way that I write. Gee, isn’t it fun to be so self-deprecating? Anyway, I am glad this topic was explored on this blog. Thanks for allowing me to rant…eh, um…express my thoughts!

but i took up your call for a blog-a-thon on this. here.

There seems to be a bitter (yes, bitter) dichotomy of students in film school. I know what comes now might be construed as petty generalizing, but bear with me. There are those students who wax knowledgeable about the Nouvelle Vague movements, know movies in and out and are out to make cinema art (and the projects of this ilk, filled with ostensible lethargy and lack of cutting, turn out to be a family-fun and free-balloons-for-Mom day in Pretentious-ville about 99% of the time–and I, myself, am overtly guilty of such bombastic, over-ambitious navel-gazing), and those who are out to make a “punchline film” (typically uninspired, slapdash films filled with splashy three-second cuts that conclude with what would seem to be the punchline of a cheap joke or a comical deus-ex-machina). What is the fundamental difference at the root of this dichotomy? Influences.

Observe how Hal Ashby directs a comical scene in Being There with how a modern comedy-director directs a comical scene. The cuts in a movie like Being There are nuanced to maximum effect (think of the scene of Chance standing on his head as Eve masturbates next to a bed) as opposed to scene in, say, Failure to Launch, where all the editor is clearly concerned with is matching action, period.

It is indeed a case of monkey-see, monkey-do. When watching the documentary Crumb with my friend/roommate lately, he told me, “Well, the more unnatural the ingested substances, the stinkier the shit” (excuse my French). This sentiment can also be readily applied to the state of film through a lack of true, legitimate legends and masters as influences. Usually at the root of a problem of a film is editing. Editing is really the factor that makes or breaks a film. Why, then, is it that the film industry has been bloated with the excrement of the unnatural substances? Lack of content, lack of inspiration, lack of nuanced editing.

Reading Jessica Winter’s article, I have problems with it myself. I find her arguments rather obtuse. However, it does indicate one of the causes and symptoms of the shift in quality.

I also worked with a cinematographer a long time ago who, when I asked him confused how he was going to edit, he replied, “Fudge editing.” Some people indeed do not realize an editor’s important role in filmmaking, even though it would seem glaringly obvious.

Well, that’s my two cents. I’ve taken the graveyard shift at the library and, other than reading John Barth, I find myself writing another novel-sized rant and needing sleep. Soon, dear boy. Soon.

1 The director did not have a precise conception in either pre-production or on the set of WHAT THE FINAL SCENE WOULD LOOK LIKE ONSCREEN. If a director does not storyboard the scene, at least in their own head, it’s that much more likely that the final cut will be helter-skelter. Notable exception: the best moments in the best films of Cassavetes, where a rock-solid CONCEPTION of every moment aided the editor into assembling wildly different takes into a powerful final cut.

2 The director just DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT AN EDITOR DOES. If he’s never cut a scene in his life, how can he possibly understand how it all comes together? There’s a reason why the phrase “We’ll fix it in post” is such a cliche. It’s the last refuge of a director who refuses to accept responsibility. Which leads to:

3 The director REFUSES TO OVERRIDE HIS EDITOR. If, for whatever reason, you’re stuck on a project with a flashcut-happy editor and you lack the confidence and/or wisdom to fight against that aesthetic, you’re going to be stuck with it.

4 THERE IS A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF HOW FILM COMEDY REALLY WORKS. A scene played out mostly without closeups and with minimal cuts, if it’s staged effectively, will always be FUNNIER than one with lots of cuts. I’m thinking in particular of the movie “Monster-In-Law” … okay, a terrible movie on a lot of fronts, but if some of the scenes had just been staged differently, with fewer cuts, it would have been much funnier.

5 MONKEY SEE, MONKEY DO. If contemporary filmmakers are just imitating the crappy filmmakers of the past, ones who fell victim to the above examples, then it stands to reason that their own films will have the same problems.

(Now that I go back and read your post again, you did mention “under directed actors,” so perhaps I’m just echoing you or agreeing with you. )

That said, I think that there is something to the idea that being a journeyman filmmaker in a fast cut environment leads to faster cutting in features. Sure, you can comprehend the idea that the mediums are different when you make the transition. But that doesn’t instantly give you mastery over the new medium – you still depend on what you’ve learned. Maybe you know intellectually that you can punch up this moment with a camera move, but don’t have the experience to pull it off. What do you do? Punch it up in the editing room.

I think the same is true of your technology argument. There is something to be said for “if all you have is a hammer”. Steadicam’s are hard to operate! Cutting digitally is easy! Use cuts to do interesting things where in might more reasonably use a camera.

Of course, I’m not sure that I buy the premise that we are deluged by senseless rapid editing. Sure, cuts are faster – in some work. Just as digital technology is making cutting easier, it’s also making cheaper and more user friendly cameras. I worked on a first feature by a writer director. His dialogue was snappy, he was clear and helpful to his actors. Then he’d plop a camera down, call action, and play everything in the master. The film was a string of 1 minute shots, with fade outs at the end of every scene. Just as making all cuts quick makes no cut have impact, so does making them all long – yet it’s so easy to make the jump from indie writer to indie writer/director/producer/editor, that those who don’t understand the camera are abusing it as readily as those who don’t understand editing.

Modern sitcoms are classics of the long take. You have sets that look like houses (arranged in a completely unlivable way), where each room has one clear camera location where everything plays. It’s not a beautiful long take, it’s not a powerful long take. But it works. Of course, over on the West Wing we have television examples of awesome long takes, and moving cameras, where the intensity is punched up via the background action.

In short: I think a lot of this crabbing is really just about bad films, bad television, bad commercials. Rather than fixating on the fact that it’s crap, the Olde Guard instead fixates on the differences in way the medium is being used. It cuts fast, that’s why it’s crap. No! It’s a terrible story made with no craftsmanship, which happens to cut fast!

And now I’ve been talking too much

And Paul, if you’re not going to call for a “long take” blog-a-thon, then I will!

As a side note, and I realize I’ve already taken liberties with this space, like Paul I’m not so quick to blame television for any perceived loss of artistry in editing. With its short formats, from commercials to dramas that are divided into 8-10 minute segments, tv may lend itself to fast cutting, but there are no shortage of shows that are edited in interesting and even deliverate ways. These may be more common on commercial free networks like HBO, but long takes can be found on other networks as well. Battlestar Galactica, for example, often features long, slow takes, as well as fast cuts when the action demands.