Ernest Rister

Bad Editing: Style for the Sake of Style

I just finished watching Tony Scott's Man on Fire, and I found myself becoming increasingly annoyed by all the jump cuts, blurred shots, black and white flash frames, takes of undercranked coverage -- many months back we had a discussion here about film directors, who we thought was the greatest director working today. This type of filmmaking is exactly the sort of empty pyrotechnics masquerading as substance that sets apart artists like Scorsese and Eastwood, Spielberg and Tarantino. Every cut and every take in their films have specific meaning and purpose.

In movies like Man on Fire or Bad Boys II, these types of gimmicks feel soulless. A chimpanzee banging away on an Avid is no more likely to produce great art than a chimpanzee banging away on a type-writer. And yet the overall effect of this type of editing style feels exactly like that -- as if the chief cutting strategy was to turn the camera dailies over to a monkey jacked up on Jolt cola and a few 8-balls.

This is editorial style for the sake of style, cuts existing to feign artistry. They say nothing about the characters. They say nothing about the story. All they do is jerk you out of the moment and constantly remind you you're watching a movie. You're trying to pay attention to the moment, the editor is saying "Look at me!" and laying in 2 frame flashbacks and black and white slow-mo footage ... for no narrative or thematic purpose. It reminds me of a time I was mixing a live band in a theater in LA for a benefit. The drummer was beating the living hell out of his drums, which was probably needed if he was playing in an open-air park, but not in a small indoor setting. You don't BEAT the drums, you PLAY the drums. That's the difference between an artist with talent and insight to his or her craft -- and a hack.

Same thing with empty editorial gimmicks. You don't edit like crazy just because you can, you edit to tell a story, and to give the audience specific information at a specific time. You don't cut a movie, you edit a movie.

I remember seeing Oliver Stone's JFK and being knocked-out by the editing. The gigantic difference between a film like JFK and some more recent films is that the editing in Stone's ground-breaking opus related volumes of key information while also expressing and supporting the key themes of the film (especially paranoia).

We're very far away from JFK in some modern films, I even question Oliver Stone's editorial techniques of late, although he's such a mad poet, I always give him the benefit of the doubt. I trust his eccentricities of late mean something to *him*, even if they aren't always immediately clear to us.

Films cut like Man on Fire are pale shadows of JFK or Nixon. They feel like a director trying to pretend that he or she is actually saying something. The only thing that movie is saying to me is "We went crazy with the Avid trying to pretend that this is an art film".

There are many, many great directors with a strong sense of personal style expressed through their editorial choices, but what makes these people great is their fierce control and assurance over their frame. Every cut, every camera move has explicit and direct purpose. Compared to the lean efficiency and precision of an Eastwood film, or the whip-crack intelligence of a Scorsese film, movies that express style for the sake of style with no substance behind their editorial tricks feel exactly like what they are -- a lie.

Kyle_D

If the gimmicks in Man on Fire annoyed you that much, I'd recommend staying away from the trailer to Scott's upcoming Domino Looks like it's going to be at least twice as over the top.

Ernest Rister

It's not just Man on Fire -- empty blipvert editing has migrated from MTV and ad campaigns into the movies. When used for a story that has nothing to do with such erratic rhythms, this style is a shell without a tortoise.

Paul_Scott

i have to wonder how much of that style is an outgrowth of the way current (younger) generations are interfacing with media compared to how we 'oldsters' did.

for instance, kids today are growing up in an environment where instant access to information is as natural as sunlight in summer.
video games are ubiquitous and are predominently 'quick' reaction vehicles.
people today exist in a media saturated/overloaded, jacked up world- just like the world i grew up in was a lot faster than for someone coming out of the 50s, etc.

i'm not saying that the majority of hyper kinetic cutting is not the result of just hack copycatting- but there is a (growing?) segment of the audience that actually responds positively to this nano-second strobing of visual information- so much so that i have to question if its an outgrowth of something else...

Steve Felix

Coming into this thread I was afraid it was going to be another Bourne Supremacy slam. I agree about Man on Fire, but that Domino trailer is so crazy I actually like it.

It's okay when movies go all the way with the concept and become somewhat abstract. Man on Fire is basically shot like a normal movie, though, and then roughed up in post, so it feels superficial (because it is). The technique obscures themes rather than adding to them as it would in a film that is jumpy to the core.

"We're trying to make a movie here, not a film!"
Flickr photos

Ernest Rister

people today exist in a media saturated/overloaded, jacked up world- just like the world i grew up in was a lot faster than for someone coming out of the 50s, etc.

Sure, and in films like 21 Grams, Amorres Perros, Eternal Sunshine, hell -- even choice moments of The Butterfly Effect -- the techniques are warranted given the subject matter and general expression, and they fit hand-in-glove.

Using that style for Man on Fire was a mistake, because it has nothing to do with that story, and all it does is distract and obfuscate.

Paul_Scott

i was going to mention it but thought the better of it.
on paper i could appreciate it- even applaud it("its to put you into the chaos of the moment, etc, etc) but in practice i found it very oft putting- very much contrary to what it was supposed to do- i became more of a passive observer in those moments, than i did when the camera work and editing was unobtrusive.

a few days later i was watching The Set-Up and listening to the commentary and they address just this issue in the opening

Chris Woodard

n/m

Chuck Mayer

The editing in Man on Fire worked for me. The film probably would have worked for me with a more traditional editing job, but it didn't take away from the film either. I'm no fan of quick cuts and "MTV" style editing, but in the hands of a skilled director, it can be effective.

There isn't a "RIGHT" way to edit. I certainly understand that many folks had a beef with Man on Fire's editing and directorial flourishes. I did not. They felt right in tune with the themes and emotional landscape of the film.

That said, I also consider Man on Fire one of the best films I saw last year.

Take care,
Chuck

JamieD

Grumpy old man.

Lovely editorial there. Perhaps Andy Rooney could use some submissions.

In case you can't guess, I completely disagree. Oh well.

My Small (But Prized) DVD Collection!

\"Actually, I am in really bad shape financially.\"