Cut to: Medium Shot
MRS. WATTS
(interrupting)
I thought last night that I had to stay….
Cut to: Medium Shot of the Clerk
MRS. WATTS
(continues)
…I thought I’d just…
At the moment of this Outgoing cut, the Clerk turns to screen left. We get a “mental hiccup,” as our eyes follow the movement of the Clerk’s face as the Incoming cut takes us to:
Close-Up of Mrs. Watts
MRS. WATTS
(continues)
…die. I couldn’t stay. But now I’ll settle for less.
The eye/brain is startled by the “mental hiccup,” but also by the choice of beats — they do not motivate a cut — and by the arbitrary, and visually illogical combining of images. The Close-Up of Mrs. Watts seems to come out of nowhere; because, visualy, it does! [Figure 6.9] There is little visual logic to the order of the set-ups — and a resulting conspicuousness in the number of set-ups.
Figure 6.9
Fewer set-ups might afford a little Visual Logic
During Mrs. Watts’ last line she moves forward — Physical Action — to the camera, and the Clerk. Her stepping forward — if seen in the Medium Shot — would have helped serve the visual logic of new, and tighter set-ups on Mrs. Watts and the Clerk.
Instead: A Cut takes us behind Mrs. Watts again, and we are very aware that now she isn’t closer to the Clerk. [Figure 6.10] The visual logic ‘says,’ Mrs. Watts must have hopped back and away.
MRS. WATTS
An hour.
Figure 6.10
Concentrating on the order of dialogue is not enough
Another cut and we are back to the Close-Up of Mrs. Watts, and to visual illogic.
Mrs. WATTS
A half-hour.
From here, confusion in beats, and an eagerness to make things work, leads to harmful over-cutting.
The arbitrary structuring of images in a dialogue scene is not uncommon; it is usually insignificant — and goes unnoticed. It is seldom as evident as in The Trip to Bountiful.
TIP: With time, and experience, you will start to spot them when you’re at the movies and — more important — in your own work.
Let me offer a few examples in the good use of Dialogue and visual logic.
Frau Mozart Seeks the Aid of Salieri scene, from Amadeus. The scene opens in Medium Long Shot:
SALIERI
(stepping forward)
How can I help you?
In Long Shot — which establishes the space between the characters — we see a woman, her face covered by a veil. She removes the veil. A cut returns us to the opening composing.
SALIERI
Frau Mozart?
A cut brings us to the Long Shot of Frau Mozart.
FRAU MOZART
I’ve come on behalf of my husband. I’ve
brought you some samples of his work,
so that he can be considered for the
Royal appointment.
A cut takes us back to Salieri. On his next line he steps forward, and toward Frau Mozart.
SALIERI
How charming. But why did he not come
himself?
HINT: Salieri’s Dialogue, spoken as he steps — Physical Action — toward Frau Mozart, is an example of integrating (beats) elements.
Salieri comes to rest; a beat is held.
Cut to: A new composition. A Medium Shot of Frau Mozart.
FRAU MOZART
Well, he’s terribly busy sir.
Salieri’s Physical Action motivates a change in composition; [Figure 6.11] and the cut to a Medium Shot of Frau Mozart is neither arbitrary, nor visually conspicuous.
Figure 6.11
Doesn’t this ‘feel’ naturally comfortable — Visually Logioal?
Basil Pascali and Mr. Bowles Meet the Pasha scene, from Pascali’s Island. The Pasha is not in his office when Pascali and Bowles arrive. In Long Shot Bowles sits at the Pasha’s desk. Pascali looks out a window. A cut from this Long Shot takes us to — an Extreme Long Shot — Pascali’s (POV) Point Of View into the courtyard below. ‘We’ see the Pasha, and his assistant, meeting with a German industrialist. A cut to a Medium Shot of Pascali — still looking out the window — carries us to Pascali’s focus of attention. What occurs next is simple and lovely visual logic: While in this Medium Shot, Pascali leans ever so slightly forward — his face now closer to the window. A cut ‘transports’ us to a Medium Shot of the three men in the courtyard — we hear their dialogue. [Figure 6.12] Pascali moved closer to the window, and we, with visual logic, got closer to the three — and their words — in the courtyard below.
Figure 6.12
Film does not necessitate a Visual Reality
Next, an example of ‘finding’ a visually logical moment to cut from a Close-Up to a previous (Master Shot) Establishing Shot.
Basil Pascali and Bowles Quarrel About the Pasha’s Lease scene, from Pascali’s Island. A waiter carries a coffee tray away from the camera, and Close Up, into the Long Shot setting of a Turkish café. We follow the waiter; his arrival at a table takes us from this first shot, by way of a cut, into a Medium Long Shot. Pascali, and Bowles are seated at a table. This Medium Long Shot will be the new, and later reused, Establishing Shot in our example. Several beats pass:
PASCALI
I’ve been all over the town looking
for you….
We ‘stay’ in our Medium Long Shot (Establishing Shot) for Pascali’s grave concerns about the Pasha’s lease.
BOWLES
I’d like to leave it for a day or
two old chap.
Cut to: Close Up of Pascali
PASCAL!
Leave it, but why?
The conversation continues with a ‘back and forth’ in Close-Ups.
BOWLES
You thought the whole thing was a
fabrication I suppose.
A cut takes us back to the Medium Long Shot (Establishing Shot). Pascali makes a waving gesture with his hand, [Figure 6.13] to emphasize:
PASCALI
I don’t know. I don’t know what I believe.
Why did you not make this clear before?
Figure 6.13
The wave of a hand; like Magic!
A new, and dramatic gesture — Pascali’s hand wave — affords the editor a visually logical premise to cut back to the Medium Long Shot (Establishing Shot). The audience is contented — and visually comfortable — with the Establishing Shot; they are witness to a new gesture.
A HINT: This is comparable to the visual logic in the ‘Popeye’ Doyle, Russo, and Suspect in a Vacant Lot scene from The French Connection mentioned earlier in the chapter. The Pascali’s Island scene occurs in a more traditional dialogue ‘setting.’
It is equally important that a visually logical purpose gets us back to our Close-Ups. A touch in timing — a ‘feel’ that does come with experience — can supply the logic.
HINT & TIP: Nothing beats visual logic, and visual logic is often ‘discovered’ in the beats.
SEVEN
cutting
emotional
attachments
“Many (editors) have the technique. I don’t
think there are quite as many who can
make a film purely emotional….”
— Carol Littleton
The editor is supplied four components. There is Picture and Sound. That makes two. There are two kinds of Picture and two kinds of Sound. There is Silent Picture, abbreviated as MOS: Mit Out Sound. Legend reports this as a smart-alecky mimicking of “without sound” spoken by a German director working in Hollywood. It caught on and continues to this day! MOS is an image photographed without simultaneous or synchronized sound recorded. There is Wild Sound: This is a recording not done simultaneously or synchronized to the photographed image. Customarily, Wild Sound is a production recording of all sounds except dialogue. This might include background ambiance (room tone), and a vari
ety of location recordings, which might contain some specific sound effects.
There is Synchronized Picture and Sound: Picture and Sound photographed and recorded simultaneously, and in synchronization. The last two of the four components usually represent the dialogue portions of each day’s filming. All of these unedited components are known as Dailies or Rushes: Picture and Sound provided from the original camera negative, and either 1/4” tape or DAT recording. The term “dailies” is commonly used in the United States, while “rushes” is preferred in England and other Commonwealth countries.
The first assembly of the selected takes — the initial choices in picture (Pix) and sound (Sd; Trk; or Sd Trk) — from the four components is fittingly called a ‘rough cut.’ Sync Picture and Sync Sound are merged with the MOS material, and (at times) with the Wild Track. Every film is edited with an arrangement of these components. As postproduction continues, other components are added: Picture and Sound effects; Titles and Credits; Music; Re-recorded Dialogue; Narration or Voice Over.
During my years of teaching, I’ve noted an editing practice characteristically used by students and young editors alike. When working with the synchronized picture and sound elements of a scene, they will promptly, and unhesitatingly, intercut between the speaking actors. There is a back and forth from one actor to the other… and back again. But, while they ‘jump-right-in’ and intercut the dialogue elements, they scarcely ever intercut the MOS selected takes. Each selected MOS take from the dailies appears in a single position within a scene. In other words, there is no back and forth between MOS shots.
I am using the term intercutting to mean the joining together of selected moments from one camera run (or shot) in a scene, with selected moments from another (or several other) shot(s) from the same scene. I am not referring here to cross-cutting or parallel editing: the joining or intermingling of shots from two or more scenes. This is the ‘accepted’ definition for all three terms — they are used interchangeably — but I make a distinction for intercutting in this chapter.
HINT: Distinguish parallel editing from cross-cutting in the next.
Suppose we have a scene of someone looking through a dresser drawer. The selected MOS shots include: [Figure 7.1] A Close-Up of the someone’s face peering into the drawer with assorted shoulder and head movements, indicating probing gestures; a Close-Up view inside the drawer, showing hands searching items; and a Medium Shot of the someone entering a bedroom, opening a drawer and rummaging through it.
Figure 7.1
Three Shots = How Many Cuts?
Using the three shots, the student begins to edit the “Someone’s Going Through the Dresser” scene. The student’s completed MOS scene would most likely be:
1. M.S. bedroom. 2. C.U. someone’s face. 3. C.U. drawer.
Or
1. C.U. someone’s face. 2. M.S. bedroom. 3. C.U. drawer.
Or
1. C.U. drawer. 2. M.S. bedroom. 3. C.U. someone’s face.
Or
1. C.U. someone’s face. 2. C.U. drawer. 3. M.S. bedroom.
Or
Some other variation of one appearance per shot. Seldom will the structure result in:
1. C.U. drawer.2. C.U. face. 3. C.U. drawer.4. C.U. face.
5. M.S. bedroom. 6. C.U. face. 7. C.U. drawer.8. C.U. face.
Or
Some other intercutting of the three MOS shots!
TIP: It is crucial that care be given not only to selecting the takes, but also and especially, the moments within each take to be used in the cutting of the scene: What is the expression in the face? What specifically are the hands doing? What details can be observed in the Medium Shot of the bedroom? What particulars do we see in each ‘revisit’ of a shot?
In most movements or actions, from subtle to extreme, there are subdivisions in which one gesture changes, and another begins. In the Close-Up of the face we might detect deliberation become serenity, become contemplative, become irritability. In the Close-Up of the drawer, we might view the hands pull the drawer open, see the hands inward-bound, begin to poke around; pause, grab for and clutch an item; fling the item aside, exit, and close the drawer. In the Medium Shot of the bedroom we might watch as someone enters, approaches the dresser, looks intently, cautiously opens a drawer, reaches inside, dips lower to get a better look, lifts items, tosses items, closes the drawer, pauses, turns, and leaves the bedroom. All of these many points, in the actions of each shot, are distinctive and include transitions. The transitions are moments of shifting expressions and/or gestures. The editor can ‘fix’ on which (beats) distinctive action — or actions — might be used to ‘hold’ the scene. A single action from the Close-Up of the face? Two actions from the Close-Up of the hands in the drawer? One, two, or three actions from the Medium Shot of the bedroom?
TIP & HINT: Catching a frame or two of a transition in the action, whether in the Outgoing or Incoming frames, could produce a “mental hiccup.” The quick-eye watches ever more alertly when a transition from one action to a new action is set in motion. An ever so slight new action, in transition, abruptly clipped, will disturb the eyes. There is a need for a mindful response.
When arranged well, the back and forth — intercutting — demonstrates a remarkable paradox in film editing: Fewer cuts can be more conspicuous than many cuts. Or: More cuts can be far less evident than fewer.
HINT: Be careful with the multiplicity of compositions. Too many set-ups in a scene — not the number of cuts — can result in perplexing eye/brain adjustments that may demand a simplification — or a reconsidered pace.
For a superb rendition of intercutting, watch one of the early scenes in Serpico.
Serpico in the Emergency Room scene: [Figure 7.2] The scene is an intercutting of five shots which total sixteen cuts. Beginning with a Medium Close-Up of a sock coming off Serpico’s foot, and ending with a Close-Up of his eye, the intercutting advances emotion as it leaves the ‘sixteen fragments’ behind; and it does something equally vital. It crafts the needs of the scene’s context: Portraying professionals working quickly from experience and training; not an emergency room staff hurrying recklessly, and in panic.
Figure 7.2
Five Shots = Sixteen Cuts
There is another moment within the scene worth mentioning. In Close-Up, Serpico’s left shoe is taken off, and dropped. [Figure 7.3] Watch, and listen!
Figure 7.3
Where’s the ‘Clunk’?
The sound of the shoe hitting the floor is especially late; but only if measured against real time. It is just right when measured by the needs of the moment, and the next cut. If the ‘clunk’ were heard at exactly the ‘accurate’ instant, eyes and ears would be ‘hit’ concurrently, bringing ‘too much’ attention to the cut.
HINT: Here is another example where matching action — or matching synchronization — is neither necessary nor advisable.
Antoine Goes for a ‘Spin’ at an Amusement Park scene, from The 400 Blows: The scene, from Francois Truffaut’s first feature film, intercuts three shots to make nineteen cuts. [Figure 7.4] The emotion produced by the choices, and timing, in the intercutting, guarantee that a smile will win your face, and…
Figure 7.4
…Centrifugal spirit will ‘catch’ your tummy
Walter Murch advises that emotion tops his list of six criteria that make for “the ideal cut.” I think it is important to see that Murch’s remark is not so much about the moment of a single ‘splice.’ It is instead a more expansive perspective: Intercutting is the surest way to a scene’s emotion.
Murch also addresses the bias inherent in terminology. In the (United) States, film is “cut,” which puts the emphasis on separation. In Australia (and Great Britain) film is “joined,” with the emphasis on “bringing together.” It is worthwhile to recognize this bias, and to keep in mind — and eye — that the editor’s task is to ‘separate’ — as in ‘to find’ — the ideal moment(s) in any shot, and to ‘join’ them.
In “bringing
(joining) together” the three MOS takes from the “Someone’s Going Through the Dresser” scene, the editor isn’t merely joining shots. By imaginatively and artistically interjoining facial expressions and hands from the Close-Ups, and body gestures and movement from the Medium Shot, the editor pulls together a wholly engaging scene. When this happens, however many the ‘joins,’ they will not be eye-stopping: An emotional attachment will have been crafted for the audience.
EIGHT
cuts
both
ways
“…the film’s dramatic requirements
should always take precedence over the
mere aesthetics of editing.”
— Edward Dmytryk
Editing is an inconspicuous art. It is not easy to be an artist, and inconspicuous. It is especially difficult to be young — an artist — and inconspicuous. There is an ongoing battle to be waged against the enticement to be conspicuous. The editor’s ability to have the audience’s eyes happily gripped by rapidly changing images, encourages the — young, or young at art — editor to over-cut; and this invariably leads to the (almost) ‘sinful’ — which likely adds to the temptation — overuse of cross-cutting and parallel editing.
Let me offer a distinction between the two terms. Cross-cutting — for me — is a better ‘fit’ to the traditional definition: the joining or intermingling of shots from two or more scenes. Parallel editing is better defined as: the joining of two or more scenes. It is a merging of fully intact scenes, and not, as in cross-cutting, the intermingling of individual shots from different scenes. Parallel editing is less ‘flamboyant,’ consequently less conspicuous, than cross-cutting; and far less likely to ‘editorialize.’ Cross-cutting or parallel editing excesses often result from efforts to ‘save’ an emotionally slumping scene, or sequence — or an entire film.
The Eye is Quicker Page 6
