-
Editing Today – another Philippic
-
[Herb Sevush] “So am I, but I don’t feel slighted by the discussion, nor do I feel the need to make everything about me.
“It’s not being “slighted” in the least. It’s keeping true to the forum banner.
Simon is essentially arguing that a tool like X is a reflection of a trend where editing is becoming infected by a “too much cutting” and that’s somehow bad for content creation.
I’m pointing out that there are oceans of other use cases OUTSIDE of feature films that make the ability to compress visual flows efficiently EXTREMELY VALUABLE for an editor.
And I’m arguing that if you view FCP X “exclusively” from a feature film mentality – then you’re missing the big picture TWICE. Once about what the actual market for ALL editing software might be heading. And a second time by constricting the judgement of the tools utility to just a particular niche of the practice.
I make these points a lot. BECAUSE I feel they’re both relevant AND easily lost when the group swings into the “big use and facility editors are the ONLY editors that really count.”land.
Look, I have nothing AT ALL against big use folks. I want X to succeed in Hollywood as much as anyone. Because I honestly LOVE the tool – and anything that’s good for the development of the tool is great for me. But I also don’t want it to suffer from the type of feature bloat that lots of long time software can incorporate – after the tools that have concentrated for so long on being all things to every possible type of user that the entire interface grows bloated and complex. (my opinion only)
It happens that I was just trying to learn some simple masking refinements in Photoshop via Lynda.com earlier tonight and landed on a tutorial on simple SELECTING and DESELECTING stuff that made me chuckle. Even the TRAINER kept forgetting to target the proper layers and had to re-do his actions two and three times to get what he wanted to do done. Maybe that was on purpose to show the students typical “it doesn’t work if you do it this way” examples? (God knows it’s certainly every bit as easy to forget a basic step like targeting something before an action in X, to be fair) But it’s also true that the way PS has developed, even the very basic stuff can be dauntingly complex. Specially when you can’t even rely on stuff like the simple layered UNDO conventions that have been working on Macs for 30 plus years!
It’s probably just me.
I’ll likely feel less cranky after I get my next video delivered and can chill a little. It’s been a really, really busy month.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Bill Davis] “Simon is essentially arguing that a tool like X is a reflection of a trend where editing is becoming infected by a “too much cutting” and that’s somehow bad for content creation. “
[Bill Davis] “I make these points a lot. BECAUSE I feel they’re both relevant AND easily lost when the group swings into the “big use and facility editors are the ONLY editors that really count.”land. “
I don’t understand the defensive posture, Bill. Simon is very obviously talking about feature films (not content creation in general) and the stylistic impact of using multiple cameras and NLEs (not specifically FCP X) have had on feature filmmaking.
Yes, the world is bigger than just feature films but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a conversation about just feature films.
-
[Bill Davis] “Simon is essentially arguing that a tool like X is a reflection of a trend where editing is becoming infected by a “too much cutting” and that’s somehow bad for content creation.”
No, Simon was talking about how “too much cutting” was affecting FEATURE FILM content. he couldn’t have been more specific. Nowhere, not once, did he take the focus off narrative films. You tried to make the thread about “content creation.”
[Bill Davis] “I also don’t want it to suffer from the type of feature bloat that lots of long time software can incorporate – after the tools that have concentrated for so long on being all things to every possible type of user that the entire interface grows bloated and complex. (my opinion only)”
Not that I haven’t beaten you over the head with this too much, but that was your exact reasoning why you didn’t want FCPX multicam to deal with more than 8 angles. It’s only “bloat” when your not using a particular feature, when you’re using that feature it’s a fantastic tool, so be careful what you wish for.
[Bill Davis] “I’ll likely feel less cranky after I get my next video delivered and can chill a little. It’s been a really, really busy month.”
That’s always a good thing to be complaining about.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
Yes, I’d agree that budgets are likely to be a contributing factor to the change in style (although I’d dispute that TV is always responsible for lowering standards, especially when the best TV shows now exhibit cinematic qualities of direction well in excess of many theatrical movies).
The irony though, as I’ve already suggested, is that well-thought out classical staging, blocking and camera movement can, when used correctly, dramatically reduce the time it takes to shoot an equivalent number of pages when compared to techniques that rely heavily on coverage.
And of course it also means less time in the cutting room because you’ve already made many of the choices in camera.
Not always but sometimes …
So maybe the real decline is in directorial technique?
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Steve Connor] “I’m not saying that this is the wrong place to have this discussion but it would be a great thread to have over on “the Art of The Edit” forum. Tim?”
No, but it does belong here – what I’m saying is that I’ll be turning my back on all this NLE nonsense and going back to my Steenbeck.
https://www.tvtechnology.com/Portals/4/james4_022112.jpg
So it’s very much on topic.
😉
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “So maybe the real decline is in directorial technique?”
Yes.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
Lowering of directorial standards. Yes.
Lowering of editorial standards. Yes
Lowering of cinematography standards. Yes.To be fair, as Jeremy has pointed out, quite a few truly awful movies were made in the “Golden Age” of Hollywood. So this isn’t really a new thing.
Regarding TV:
I don’t think TV is responsible for the lowering of standards. Instead, by virtue of it’s sheer volume, it reflects and magnifies trends. TV has time and budget pressures far in excess of most movies. So any way to cut time/cost becomes the norm. And with several generations being raised on TV, they naturally bring their background with them onto the set and into the edit bay.
Another thing to keep in mind with TV is the extent to which producers run the show. TV directors really can’t be compared to film directors, even those working on non-network shows. Case study: Newsroom, Aaron Sorkin’s show for HBO. Even with a name creator/writer/producer, the network suits manage to exert their influence. Examples: “not enough cuts – add more” was an actual note. The show even added “shaky cam” effects in post production to the material already shot on a tripod or with a Steadicam. Can’t blame the directors or the editors. Blame some nameless MBA executive who thinks he’s qualified to tell the creatives what to do.
This, in a nutshell, is American television. That anything interesting gets on the air is amazing.
-
I think Bill’s defensive posture stems more from the by now de rigeur tongue lashing from Herb than from anything else.
Nothing wrong with trying to broaden the discussion. Special in this forum.
-
[Herb Sevush] “Yes, but they are almost always low budget indie films. Beasts of the Southern Wild was a fantastic film. The World’s End is my other favorite film of the last few years. Neither would ever be made at a big studio nowadays.
“Herb-
First, I missed both of those movies, and second, thanks so much for clarifying your position. I do agree with your sentiments. Personally, I am at an odd time in my life with movies. Most of it has to do with not having enough time to go to the theater since I have a little one, so the movies I do watch are for the most part, used for a bit of escapism. My little guy is a constant grounding force, I’m sure you know the feeling. He is the closest thing to the greater notion of ‘life’ than I have ever experienced. It is absolutely awesome.
Which means movies have to sometimes be a throw away. A relatively quick moment in time that literally lifts me off of the ground, and takes me away for a little while. Movies I would have scoffed at a few years ago, I now look at and say my self that I had a pretty good time. I am not ashamed to admit it, but I liked Michael Bay’s Pain and Gain. Yep, it’s like that.
I think that some of the big budget modern movies are handling escapism in spades. I really enjoyed The Edge of Tomorrow. From a writing, therefore directing, therefore acting, therefore editing standpoint, that movie could have been handled nearly a million different ways. I thought the movie that was delivered was a great way to handle all of the possible combinations, and the performances were pretty damn decent. Most of all, the timing of the editing was spot on, and I enjoyed it a lot, and the theme definitely took cues from video games. I’m also a fan of dry humor. It was also a big budget movie released by a big studio. I heard Tom Cruise talk about it on a podcast, and he was commenting about how you basically have a weekend, maybe two, to really recoup your costs on these big budget features. That is an immense amount of risk for a studio to take on, and I think probably relates to yours and Simon’s greater points of view. The financial risks are so big, that it’s harder to take riskier choices in blocking/directing/whatever you want to assign it to.
Another modern movie that I enjoyed very much was End of Watch, which was an indie-ish flick. I think it did a great job of capturing observed vantage points of modern technology. Everything from surveillance camera, helicopter/drone views (that also tie in to more of a video game style), video chat, to very wide and very close angles (think GoPro) and combining all of the footage in to a commentary on modern policing, as well as a dramatized effect of drug enforcement/war on drugs. It’s a modern movie with modern sensibilities and really good performances, and I think, represents a very contemporary point of view of how people see the world and how the world sees it’s people. It also took cues from video games.
And perhaps Simon is right. Perhaps there isn’t enough ambition, or perhaps there’s no enough Kurosawa background rain in movies these days, but I don’t think all is lost. There’s some highly thoughtful and entertaining film making happening, even in the modern day.
What I have never liked, even though I like the show, is the editing on Mad Men. The two character office dialogue always feel weird to me, like the reaction shots happen just a few beats too late, and sometimes the reaction shots are voiceless and not very well acted. This happens over and over, so it must be some sort of directorial device. It doesn’t stop me from watching and liking the show, though.
-
No, we do not.
Tim
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up