Bad Editing: Style for the Sake of Style (1 Viewer)

[Ernest Rister]

Andrew wrote:


It could be both, but tyically more of the latter. In Man on Fire, it is more haphazard -- you get sandbagged by editorial flourishes in every scene.

As I said:

The editing style feels imposed on Man on Fire, it is not organic to the material, and that's the crux of the issue. It's style for its own sake and the audience has to fight the editing to watch the movie.

That's what we're talking about.

 

[Rob Pritchard]

Can you imagine the opening of The Godfather or the well scene in Laurence of Arabia given the current rapid editing treatment? By the time the Don had begun to give his reply or Omar Sharif had arrived at the well, we'd have had a hundred different cuts and probably a techno soundtrack inserted in case some poor darling didn't find the visuals enticing enough.

Now that brings to mind another problem, kind of the evil twin of flashy, attention deficit editing and it's this: shooting in slow-motion. Not Peckinpah slow-motion but the ever-so-slightly-slower-than-normal-speed sort that Mel Gibson overused in Bravheart. I've forgotten how it's achieved but isn't it something along the lines of shooting at 30 frames per second instead of 24? I imagine somebody on here will know the exact speed. But the thing is Mel went completely OTT with it in Braveheart and it achieves near farcial results in the bit where Mel rides into town to avenge the murder of his wife. You sort of get the impression that the movie would have been half as long if he'd just shot everything at normal speed. I think Gibson actually mentions the technique on the audio commentary, about how the audience supposedly never conciously notices it. Well I've got news for you Mel, it is incredibly noticeable and deeply bloody irritating to boot. What's even worse is that practically every other action movie director overuses it as well. I mean what is the point of it? What is the significance of seeing groups of people or individuals moving at slightly-slower-than-normal speed? To be honest I don't think there is one. It's just another visual gimmick that's been appropriated by hack directors. Grr.

 

[Kyle_D]

I'll disagree with the criticism of Braveheart.

The point of 30 fps slow motion is to subtly extend a dramatic moment, playing it for maximum effect. When it's organic to the material, as it is in Braveheart IMO, it's not just style for style's sake.

It's also used extensively in Raging Bull, not just in the fight scenes, but in the scenes where LaMotta suspiciously watches his wife with his brother. The slow-motion enhances the audience's perception of his paranoia.

 

[Quentin]

Ernest also derided overcranking in his original post (though, he called it undercranking). IMO, no one does it as well as Scorsese. Of course, he and Thelma are also master editors.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

As a 22-year-old who didn't grow up staring at TV or video games, I happen to have a great fondness for long takes, particulary with tracking and dolly shots, &c. On the other hand, my favourite genre of cinema is one well-known for its quick cuts. Inconsistent? a sign of self-hatred? I don't know. What I do know is this:
I like good editing which suits the material -- not just the story, but also the cinematography. Bad editing just fills me with confusion and takes me "out of the picture" [as I remarked in the STEAMBOY thread, I am the type who can find himself in the middle of the action even on a 19 inch screen].

 

[Ernest Rister]

Ernest also derided overcranking in his original post (though, he called it undercranking).

No, I was talking about Man on Fire's smash-edit moments using undercranking -- fast-motion shots, not slow-motion. There are mutliple examples of these in the movie, and like every other bit of stylistic excess, they mean nothing. It's just a quick meaningless effect.

 

[Chris Atkins]

Two comments:

First, which movie was Roger Ebert reviewing when he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "Hollywood finally succeded in making a 2 hour trailer."

Second, I saw a great example of a long take recently in THE KARATE KID. It's right after Daniel gets whupped on by the Skeleton boys, and Miyagi agrees to teach him karate. The sequence, unbroken, is about five minutes long. A great job by all involved.

 

[Quentin]

Oh yeah, those! You know, I'm not even sure if he undercranked or just used the avid to do that. I can swear I saw identical shots is slow, fast, and normal speed - which means he's just playing around on the PC.

 

[Scott_MacD]

Chris -

Comment #1 - http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...807010301/1023 - one of his more entertaining critical roastings.

I can't offer much in the way of writing about bad editing, other than it has helped me appreciate the skill of a good director/editor team. I penned this when I saw the film theatrically about six months ago.

"Tony Scott's movie is a film which uses it's initiory situation to fuel the audience's bloodlust, and cements it's value yardstick with B-side Nine Inch Nails and all the tricked out photography and editing you can eat. Slow motion, speeding up, bass thumps, bleached out post-processing, and exaggerated SHOUTING subtitles. As with so much, it's not the fact that it's used, but how it is used, and overused by Scott. An editor's nightmare, to say nothing of the conscious audience. Scott's overly slick work tries to offset and drive the film's rotten moral core."

 

[Seth--L]

Godard strikes again.

 

[AlexCremers]

But ... why put money and energy in a Tony Scott film? One quick look at his ouevre should be enough to warn you that disappointment is bound to happen. You'll be better off choosing the DVD that's standing left or right from 'Man on Fire'.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Manon of the Spring!
i highly recommend it- no smash cuts or under/over-cranking, that i can recall.

 

[AlexCremers]

In that case, don't forget to watch Jean De Florette first!