The Cutting Edge (Blog #1)

In lieu of tracing a sort of thematic thread, I’ve decided to simply comment on certain insights that I took note of while watching—given that the assignment, and blogs in general, are somewhat informal.

The first being an opening quote from Anthony Minghella: “film is the sum of editing.” Conceptually, I think this is a useful lense to view editing through—especially as the interviews progress, and individual frames are compared to the likes of puzzle pieces, and Walter Murch gives the visual of boxes within boxes. As a student having not only no prior editing experience, but also no prior knowledge of editing whatsoever (for it is invisible), it’s helpful to view frames as parts of a collective whole; and I think it’s important to conceptualize this well before critically thinking about the cuts themselves.

Secondly, I took note of the importance of a single frame—the discussion of Jaws, but more specifically, Quentin Tarantino: “one frame off, or two frames added, or two fames less, is the difference between a sour note and a sweet note […] between clunky, clumsy crap and orgasmic rhythm.” It seems this is a tenet of editing—a fraction of a second can influence the psychology of an entire film. Having said that, while I thoroughly enjoy his films, I’m making an honest attempt to avoid hearing Tarantino speak ever again; guy’s a lunatic—I’d much rather listen to Scorsese talk (or David Lynch—I wish they got him on here).

I don’t have anything necessarily insightful to say about the relationship between director and editor; I was simply previously unaware of this level of artistic interaction, and likening it to marriage is interesting (as was more lunacy from Tarantino).

Alexander Payne thinks of editors as “really sly politicians.” I loved this comparison; “the emotional, psychological effect from a certain type of cutting […] the manipulation” (Scorsese). Stalin is discussed here, as is Hitler in the later half of the film—but I fully intend on looking into the Why We Fight series from the US; film [and editing] as a manipulative agent is a truly remarkable phenomena. Examining editing as such allows for a case study not only on the power of film in itself, but on a reflection of the human psyche—on its fallibility and on its interpretation of film as sensory experience. In this sense, it seems editors do have the ability [without hyperbole] to create alternative, symbolic realities; and the simulacrum has the ability to affect rational order.

The segment on the same face being intercut with varying images does a great job in explicitly illustrating the power of juxtaposition; and the editor as controller of actors’ performances is worth noting.

I like the idea of Spielberg’s editor as the “most objective eye.” As he says, the editor hasn’t been “inundate[d]” by the film—in this sense, the editor is the first viewer, a watcher that is to experience the unmediated emotion of the picture.

I suppose, technically speaking, what I’ve taken away from the documentary echoes your own insights upon taking a look at my first cut—editing insofar as the manipulation of time—the ability to slow time and speed it up through cuts, developing pacing through breaths and pauses.

A few more final highlights: Murch’s description of editing as “a dance of eyes,” and ‘carrying attention,’ and getting your final cut by banging on the keyboard at random.