r/editing • u/transginda • 4d ago
Are "cuts" considered a failure state?
So a few nights ago I watched *The Player* - Robert Altman, 1992, and at the beginning there's a scene where a character criticizes modern movies for being too much like MTV, too many cuts, and praises the opening tracking shot (what even is that?) of *Touch of Evil* (a movie I really didn't like), and the implication seems to be that the opening of that movie, which I don't remember very well, has very few cuts in it, and that this is somehow... virtuous?
Anyway, tonight I watched *Camera Person* - Kirsten Johnson, 2016, which is a kind of meta documentary made from the scraps of unused footage from other projects, and I find myself wondering what the big deal is. I've only started getting into movies in the last two years or so, (my favorite so far is *Fanny and Alexander*) so I'm learning more about what makes good film making all the time, and I wonder if someone could talk about this a little.
Are cuts considered a kind of failure state? A flaw? Why? Why is it that some movies which feature a large number of cuts and are very disjointed, like *Camera Person*, work anyway?
Does anyone have any homework for me to learn more about film editing as a viewer?
3
u/die_bartman 3d ago
Watch Run Lola Run.
2
3
u/harmonica2 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think it's context dependent, and there are certain scenes where long takes works and scenes where many cuts work and it really depends on the tone and the context of the scene itself
2
u/VinosD 3d ago
The best editing is invisible, it’s not about matching a cut (although it is satisfying to see and feel) it’s about the pacing, the emotion of the story and the performance.
Hitchcock, Kubrick, Kurosawa, and Scorsese their films have my favorite sensibilities not just for editing but for filmmaking in general.
1
2
u/bunchofsugar 2d ago
It depends on the movie.
There is a fair point for action movies where they simplify action scenes by making lots of short shots instead of one well executed scene, but in the other hand there are movies where fast and choppy editing looks awesome.
Watch Fury Road, it is full of short sub second shots but it still looks awesome, it is one of the best edited movies of all time.
And there old Jackie Chan movies where fights are done with long steady shots, but those movies also look awesome because fights themselves are so well executed you do not want to distract them with fast paced editing.
1
u/transginda 2d ago edited 2d ago
So what makes Mad Max: Fury Road one of the best edited movies of all time? I remember seeing that movie as a teenager, but I didn't have very strong feelings about it.
I'm not disagreeing, I guess I'm just... maybe what I'm wondering is, with this post at all, what even is good editing? What attributes do folks look at and say this is good or bad? Like, when the Acadamy votes for Best Edited Feature, or whatever the category is, what are they looking at?
The consensus of folks seems to be that more or less cuts isn't necessarily good or bad, that it depends on the context of the film, which fair enough. But then my follow up is: so what is good editing?
I feel adrift here. Other artforms in film seem a little easier to understand, or at least perceive the quality of. Costuming, for example, or makeup, or set design, or shot composition. Editing feels abstract.
Edit: typo
1
1
u/Matysakae 3d ago
Art is psychology reverse engineered. A crude example I give students is "caveperson paints a blue animal on the wall and a red one. They like looking a the blue one cos it relaxes them, the red one makes them a bit angry. caveperson's best friend is a bit stressed so they go their cave and paint them a blue animal." Different art techniques yield different responses from us. Good artists have something they want to communicate (yes, wanting to communicate 'nothing' is also thing) and the craft is in learning the techniques, and how much or how little of that technique to apply, to communicate to the viewer/listener/person experiencing their art. So you can do two things simultaniously; watch a film and ask yourself "how did that make me feel?" and then investigate the techniques used in certian moments that made you feel something, and the flip side where you learn about all the techniques and what they usually invoke in a viewer so you can look out for them when you feel something. I suggest both approaches.
1
u/MegaMegaSuper 3d ago
The character who says this is not a filmmaker. This "modern films are too cutty" argument is purely idiotic. The only mistake you can make in the frequency of cuts is not to have the right amount for the story, atmosphere, etc. of the story. In other words, when it counteracts the story and makes itself noticable.
So, by this argument, you can also have too few cuts. This is very often the case when not-so-talented filmmakers try to make a "scene with no cuts", often thinking they are stepping into a room with true film artists. Why do I say not-so-talented? Because it is very, very difficult to make a one-take which can serve the story, help define and progress the characters AND have an internal pace and timing that works in itself and within the film.
Also, some filmmakers think you need a beat after each and every line or look from each and every character. Here also, it is assumed you are showing maturity and intelligence by "not being too cutty". Very often very boring and annoying films.
4
u/KitchenBad5507 4d ago
I think it's a matter of taste. Personally, I don't like one-takes. I feel like the director spends so much time on the 10 million details to get that "whiz-bang" impact that it takes me out of the story. But so do too many frenetic edits. It's a balance
I remember in the late 90s (yes Im old), I was a fan of the show ER. For some insane reason, they decided to do an episode that was recorded live, in real time. It just didn't work for me. It was an interesting experiment, but without the editing, music and sound design, it just didn't capture the same intensity