One of the criticisms I hear of older films is that they are slow-moving and boring.\u00a0 The editing of newer films is supposed to be faster.\u00a0 This is simply not true.\u00a0 The editing of modern films is different.\u00a0 In some ways, it\u2019s even slower today.<\/p>\n
Hollywood today is frightened to death of dialogue and plot.\u00a0 They fear it might get in the way of a good chase scene or fart joke.\u00a0 The problem is that a great number of films jettison so much dialogue and plot that they become basically two-hour chase sequences, and that\u2019s boring.\u00a0 When you have no idea who is doing what to whom, and there is no characterization left to let you know it, then all you can do is sit back in your chair and wait until something interesting happens.\u00a0 Sadly, it seldom does.<\/p>\n
Editor Peter Hunt (a pause now in silence for one of the greatest editors of all time) used to say that an action sequence in a film should never be more than five minutes long, or else the audience gets bored.\u00a0 He pointed to Thunderball <\/em>(1965) as a movie that annoyed him a bit, because he\u2019d cut the scenes the way they seemed to flow most efficiently, and the three producers on the shoot kept overruling him. \u201cOh, that shot is too good to throw out.\u00a0 Put it back in.\u201d\u00a0 And as a result, he thought Thunderball <\/em>was draggy in places.\u00a0 He was right.\u00a0 Still, Thunderball\u2019<\/em>\u2018s opening fight sequence is one of the slickest and most efficient in film history.\u00a0 It still works today.\u00a0 Don\u2019t believe me?\u00a0 \u00a0 Check this out.<\/a><\/p>\n OK, the rocket pack at the end is too silly.\u00a0 But let\u2019s contrast this with a newer Bond film, Casino Royale <\/em>(2006).\u00a0 Due to legal snags, the original Fleming book couldn\u2019t be adapted as an official Bond film until this was released.\u00a0 The book is a little sparse for a two-hour film.\u00a0 So what to do?\u00a0 They grafted on three chase sequences with just a hair\u2019s breadth of plot to combine them.\u00a0 And each chase sequence was about 15 minutes long.\u00a0 The first one was a foot chase, which was at least pretty compelling, but it was followed by a truck chase inspired by (or stolen from) Raiders of the Lost Ark <\/em>and then a chase through an airport taken from Die Hard 2 <\/em>(if they\u2019re going to steal from Die Hard <\/em>films, can\u2019t they at least steal from a good one?)<\/p>\n As a result, Casino Royale <\/em>has been running for about 45 minutes before the story really starts, at which point I\u2019ve pretty much ceased to care.\u00a0 It gets worse, because the plotline that Fleming used, which was intense and psychological, is cut to the bare minimum.\u00a0 We can\u2019t have too much of a plot, because we might bore 15-year-old boys who come to see things blow up.\u00a0 It was only due to the fact that I know the book, and I know other versions of the story, that I could follow it.<\/p>\n In case you just missed it, I cited an example in which an older film actually moves faster <\/em>than a newer one, and it was a film that the editor thought was too slow!\u00a0 The idea now, and increasingly, is that the story doesn\u2019t matter at all, so we need to pad out the action scenes.\u00a0 This means that the video game based on the movie is probably going to be very cool.\u00a0 I guess no one has realized that video games and movies are different media.\u00a0 I\u2019m not terribly excited about watching a two-hour video game in which I can\u2019t participate.<\/p>\n So I\u2019ve ranted enough about the slowness of today\u2019s cutting, and how scenes go on too long.\u00a0 That\u2019s not what most people go on about when they talk about old films being slower.\u00a0 What they\u2019re talking about is that each shot is often longer in older films.<\/p>\n I\u2019m not against fast cutting. You\u2019ll note that the cutting in Thunderball <\/em>is actually pretty fast.\u00a0 I am against cutting a movie so that you lose a sense of geography in the film.\u00a0 For over a hundred years, we\u2019ve cut movies according to rules.\u00a0 These rules help us understand what is happening in a film.\u00a0 A fight should start with a long shot, which gives us an idea of where everything is located.\u00a0 We might then cut to a closeup of a punch, and then to a medium shot back to a reaction by someone.\u00a0 Establishing shot, insert, reaction…<\/p>\n There are a lot of people who don\u2019t do that anymore.\u00a0 We shoot everything in extreme closeup.\u00a0 I\u2019m not sure why we\u2019ve gone to this, but we have.\u00a0 Some people think it\u2019s because TV is lower resolution and closeups register better with the audience.\u00a0 This means that the filmmakers really are <\/em>shooting for television even though we may see a theatrical release.\u00a0 Other people say it gives us a sense of immediacy with the action.\u00a0 In my humble, ranty opinion, it does none of that.\u00a0 It\u2019s the cinematic equivalent of an epileptic seizure.\u00a0 We have no idea what is happening, and it\u2019s nothing but disorganized movement.\u00a0 If we combine this with the trend for longer action sequences, then basically\u00a0 it just gives me the urge to sit back in my chair and yawn until something coherent shows up.<\/p>\n I know I\u2019m opening myself up for a criticism that I don\u2019t like anything that\u2019s new.\u00a0 Not true.\u00a0 I want to see good, strong storytelling.\u00a0 Editing is part of that.\u00a0 For example, I was delighted to see Inglourious Basterds <\/em>(2009).\u00a0 The opening sequence of that film is a thing of beauty.\u00a0 I won\u2019t give it away, but it centers on a German officer (Christoph Waltz) trying to discover the location of some Jewish refugees.\u00a0 The editor stretches out some takes to make us uncomfortable sitting in our chairs.\u00a0 What is he thinking?\u00a0 Why is this scene going on so long?\u00a0 The tension builds masterfully.\u00a0 It\u2019s as good as any scene you\u2019re likely to see.<\/p>\n On the other end of the scale, watch the chase between Sean Connery and Nicolas Cage in The Rock <\/em>(1995).\u00a0 It\u2019s cut too fast, with too few establishing shots and too many closeups.\u00a0 You can see it here,<\/a> although I apologize for the squished aspect ratio (and the language is not appropriate for kids).\u00a0 I\u2019ll be blunt here: I love Sean Connery, I love Nic Cage, I\u2019ve visited San Francisco and driven down these very streets.\u00a0 I hate this sequence.\u00a0 I can\u2019t tell what\u2019s going on.\u00a0 It makes no sense; the camera is too shaky, the cutting is too fast.\u00a0 Director Michael Bay made it on to my \u201cbanned for life\u201d list because of this film.<\/p>\n You wanna see a good chase scene shot in this same area?\u00a0 Here\u2019s one:”<\/a> It\u2019s from What\u2019s Up, Doc<\/em> (1972) made by Peter Bogdanovich.\u00a0 Notice that he uses long shots so that we know what\u2019s happening.\u00a0 It\u2019s not slow (it may be a bit long), but it works.\u00a0 The guy knows how to make a movie! Yeah, I know that the point of the two scenes is different.\u00a0 The Rock <\/em>is a serious chase with a little comedy and What\u2019s Up Doc <\/em>is a comedic chase with some thrills.<\/p>\n My point is that the cutting is completely different, and that\u2019s due to what the editor used and what the director gave him.\u00a0 I think it\u2019s insane to make a generalization that older films are slower.\u00a0 Some are, and some aren\u2019t.\u00a0 And you have to figure whether long scenes are slower than quick cuts.\u00a0 It\u2019s hard to measure.\u00a0 Editing is an important and little-understood art.\u00a0 It\u2019s something I\u2019m going to come back to on this blog page.\u00a0 One of my pet projects is a re-edit of a scene from Plan 9 From Outer Space<\/em>.\u00a0 I\u2019ve contended for years that the worst problem with that film is editing. Stay tuned.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" One of the criticisms I hear of older films is that they are slow-moving and boring.\u00a0 The editing of newer films is supposed to be faster.\u00a0 This is simply not true.\u00a0 The editing of modern films is different.\u00a0 In some ways, it\u2019s even slower today. Hollywood today is frightened to death of dialogue and plot.\u00a0 … Continue reading “The Quick, Quick, Slow Cut”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"powered_cache_disable_cache":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,207],"tags":[44,30,45],"class_list":["post-24","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-dr-films-pocket-rants","category-film","tag-chaos-cinema","tag-editing","tag-speed"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=24"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28,"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24\/revisions\/28"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=24"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=24"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=24"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}