Editing in film.. old school examples!

Through out the past couple of weeks I've continued to research into editing- the styles and effects editing has on piece. I've come across some interesting old edits...

-This is an awesome example of "busy shots." This piece was by a man called "Dziga Vertov" who we, as a class, have looked at previously. This piece was, however, edited by his wife "Elizaveta Svilova," who helped with with the process of deleting and adding new frames into the film. This was an experimental silent documentary film, in 1929. It involved no actors, no story.

"Every frame is important." I stick by this, through experience. I've done edits when we've been praticing filming, and sometimes you wish you've filmed a tiny shot in between another shot. It also shows a narrative and shows that putting shots together creates a story.

This is a good example of editing as it shows the power of juxtaposition.

I also think this has every effect under the sun- At the beginning there were short shots which repeated over and over, moving into montage sequence which really kept you engaged. There were blending of shots- merging into a similar shot and so forth. As you watch further into it, you can also see the shots being sped up/ rotated etc- there really is a big mix of what to expect in the piece.

There was also an interesting point where you could see a reaction from people watching the stop time animation- a new technique no-one had seen before. So when this first came out, it could feel like a reflection of the people actually watching it.

A modern example of combined "storyline" focus would be Mike Figgis' "Timecode."
there were actors but no script, so similar in that sense.

The film shows four storylines on a split screen simultaneously at the same time, changing the audio from screen to screen for the audience to follow and to understand which story to focus on. The director is guiding the eye of the viewers with their ears which I find effective as it makes you concentrate a lot more on each individual event that is happening.

Figgis had an unusual way of filming as the script wasn't written. The work came from the actors involved; the director simply gave them a scenario and the 'jist' of what wants to be said and the actors took it into their own hands. A typical day of filming would be one or two takes a day, all the way through, and be reviewed at the end to suggest different ideas/ how the performances were etc, as the story was done by four cameras in one take.

There are pro's and con's to filming in this way. The negative things could be that you have to make sure the actors are doing their best otherwise the stories don't work as there's no script to use as a back up.

A very big plus, however, is that the post production is a lot easier because only little tweaks will be needed to finish the film as they will all be one take. Even though this does save a massive amount of time after filming, the pre-production would take a lot longer than the average film as they would need to set everything up, make sure all the actors hit their marks and cues at the right time, practice all the way through before filming so's not to waste film, and in order to correct any alterations needed.

The film was in fact the final take!

Another good example of editing would be Micheal Kahn, a prestigious film editor, collaborating with major directors such as Stephen Spielberg for over 30 years, winning academy awards for his editing in...

Raiders of the lost ark (1981)
Schindler's List (1993)
Saving private ryan (1998)

He is one of the few editors who still edits on film.. although having edited digitally with films not directed by Spielberg- It is said that he wouldn't use digital edits with Spielberg as they got so far using the same technique, why fix something that's not broken?

"We started that way and both really enjoy it." (Kahn)




I decided to use this clip as an example as I love the way Tom Hanks, (the main character), is introduced to the film; very subtle and you don't see his face straight away which airs a certain mystery on who he is to the film and why the focus is on him. There are also other shots of the men around him; quiet, heavy breathing so you know there is anticipation of what's to come.

I think the style of editing is suited very well to the genre of the film; quick, snappy edits and cut- aways in some parts, and lingering eery shots in others. I thought it was an effective introduction for any film as it dives in straight away, so you know to expect some action!