The Invisible Art: The Art of Film Editing
Film editing is often overlooked or underrated in comparison to other aspects of filmmaking. Most people probably cannot name a single film editor yet could list dozens of actors or directors. Interestingly, editors hold one of the most important and complex roles in the filmmaking process. Valerie Orpen eloquently explains "many textbooks or volumes that deal with the totality of filmmaking present rules, principles, and systems of editing, but rarely deal with how directors and editors utilize editing to express their vision in the same manner as the other film crafts" (Orpen). Editing can often be treated as an afterthought yet it is one of the most critical aspects of storytelling on camera. Orpen believes the act of editing should be approached less as a "rigid tool" and more as another form of creative expression (Orpen). It is the only art form exclusive to film and has been referred to as the invisible art. The documentary narrator from The Cutting Edge: The Magic of Movie Editing went on to say “Unfortunately the invisible style of editing kept editors invisible and unappreciated as well. For years they have been the best kept secret of the movies” (Apple). Regardless of whether or not performance or direction is well done in a work of cinema, the ultimate success of a film falls on the editor through his use of transitions, techniques, and his ability to maintain continuity throughout the film.
What is Editing?
“The expressiveness of lighting, camera movements, colour, sound and so forth has been explored to a to a large extent. Editing is far more elusive” (Orpen). Technically speaking, editing is the process of creating sequences by cutting and splicing raw footage together. The first filmmakers had no editing or “cuts” in their movies, which made audiences grow tired of the mundane nature of the films. The early years of filmmaking seemed to be going nowhere until the concept of cutting was introduced. In fact, filmmaker Jean Renoir stated that cinema was an invention without a future in those early years (Apple). “I’m not saying this because I’m an editor, but the invention of editing... allowed film to take off.” Murch elaborated (Apple). Editing was first done with physical film by cutters that directors thought of as skillful or handy far more than artistic. The earliest years of film cutting established an unfair perception of editors for generations. They were perceived more as handymen than artists and still are by many people who do not fully understand what editing is or does. In layman's terms editing is cutting and combining. In actuality, it is the creative and innovative combination of images, music, timing, dialogue, story, and actor’s performances in order to re-imagine the film as a whole (Orpen). Every frame of footage is a different transitional opportunity. Transitions themselves are essential in establishing relationships and creating meaning, as Soviet filmmakers proudly vocalized in the early years of film.
The Importance of Juxtaposition
Lev Kuleshov and other Soviet filmmakers of the 1920s considered editing to be the creative force of film and film art. “They were engaged in a pure explosion of creative activity of manipulating these images” editor Mark Goldblatt said of the Russian filmmakers that were changing film dynamics (Apple). Kuleshov demonstrated how the audience’s perception of a scene could be altered contextually by splicing the same shot of one man with cut-away shots or shots of items outside of the scene (Mobbs). The “Kuleshov effect” is a short montage compiled by the filmmaker in an attempt to show filmmakers that “context can alter an audience's’ perception of an actor’s facial expressions, thoughts and feelings” (Mobbs). In other words, an audience will make assumptions about what an actor is feeling based on the footage that actor is cut with. The shot he chose is a close up of actor Ivan Mozzhukhin face, which he compiles with shots of food, a girl, and a small coffin (Shelokhonov). “He focused on putting two shots together to achieve a new meaning,” a concept that revolutionized editing in the silent film era (Shelokhonov). The footage Kuleshov used of the objects the man was implied to be staring at is a technique known today as a cut-away. It is the implication of a continuous action through the insertion of a view of something outside of the scene. It is often followed by a continuation of the first shot, though not always. Mark Goldblatt describes the way in which the juxtaposition of one shot and a second shot creates a third meaning, “The third meaning is an effect, an emotion that is much greater than the sum of two parts that put it together in the first place” (Apple). The technical impact of the cut-away concept has become a staple in the film industry. Lev Kuleshov believed the essence of all of cinema to be the juxtaposition from shot to shot. His theoretical studies of film, most significantly the Kuleshov effect, have changed the way montage is studied and created and more importantly began a discussion and mindset about editing that had not previously existed (Shelokhonov). He was inspired by early American filmmaker D. W. Griffin who explored ideas about editing that Kuleshov expanded on. The meaning of a film is not in the shots themselves but rather in their collision. When two elements are in conflict, their collision inspires a new higher order of emotions that were not established from the initial shots separately.
The Father of Film: the Rise of American Cinema
Although the early Soviet filmmakers and experimentalists were among the first groups to vocalize and promote the significance the act of editing has on cinema, the importance became much more obvious through analysis of feature films. Kuleshov studied directors such as D.W. Griffith and Mack Sennett and introduced aspects of their technique into Russian cinema (Shelokhonov). D.W. Griffith, the “Father of Film” or “The First Modern Editor” as he has been called, was the first filmmaker who understood the psychological importance of editing (Gunning). Griffith is an important figure when examining editing because he not only changed the way movies are shot, he established a language of film that is still used today (Gunning). As a videographer or editor, the most crucial aspect of your job is maintaining synchronicity from shot to shot. Griffith developed a seamless editing style, matching actions from cut to cut, that has been the “dominant editing style in Hollywood for decades” (Apple). “Griffith’s films both responded to and affected a broad transformation of film in American culture” (Gunning). Jimmy Edward Smith was the name of his primary editor. Together they made nearly 200 films in a two-year radius. Griffith’s work very specifically marks a shift from film as a “cheap thrill” into the storytelling device it is now, complete with narration and developed characters (Gunning). It is interesting to imagine a time when cinema was only composed of one continuous shot when we are so accustomed to seeing ideas on continuity and synchronicity being applied to film. Editing has become something we are so used to, it easily goes unnoticed. Although Jimmy Edward Smith was the singular person working closest with Griffith on creating movies, his name is not one praised with as high regard as the director although they were essentially creating the continuous editing style together. Editors and directors have a very close-knit relationship while working on a project together, a relationship that is unique from other crewmembers due to its seclusive nature. They tend to play tug of war in a sense over creative decisions like which frame to cut on or which take to use.
Editors and Directors
The influential and esteemed editor, Walter Murch, discussed how editors are capable of making executive decisions while still adhering to the director's wishes. In an interview discussing his collaboration with Francis Ford Coppola on The Conversation, Murch explained "He chose to shoot them, and in ninety-nine percent of the cases I chose to use them deliberately- I recognized their power and put them in the order you see in the finished film" (Ondaatje). Editors have to work very closely with directors in order to achieve visual harmony. Many directors have long-lasting established career oriented relationships with certain editors such as Francis Ford Coppola and Walter Murch or Martin Scorsese and his long-time editor, Thelma Schoonmaker. Ridley Scott compared finding the relationship with an editor to deciding whether or not to get married (Apple). Editors are the singular crewmembers that spend the most solitary time with the director and hold a very important role in the director’s life. Sally Menke who cuts for Quentin Tarantino described the collaboration of editor and director as “intense” more than anything else (Apple). She even went as far to say for a solid eight months of the year she will see Tarantino more than she sees her own husband. For a long time editorial decisions were primarily neglected in film studies or the director would be commended for them. Director James Cameron realized the importance of editing will working on the film, Terminator 2. He attempted to cut one frame every second throughout the whole movie in order to save a few minutes of time (Apple). Naturally, the end result was a jumbled mess of obvious jump cuts and jerking actions with no continuous flow or motion. Cameron explains “Every single one of those frames is important. Once you know that as an editor, you get scared… But then after a while you start to realize there’s great power in that too” (Apple). Murch's contributions to The English Patient and The Conversation made for an entirely different viewing experience than what was initially planned for the films while still adhering to the director’s wishes (Ondaatje). He explained, “In editing, the order of scenes often changes from what it was in the script.” (Ondaatje). During his acceptance speech for the Scripter Award he received for his work on The English Patient, Murch read the order of the scenes as they were in the script followed by the order he chose to put them in for the final edit of the movie (Ondaatje). The order seen in the final edit of the film ended up being something along the lines of “1, 42, 2, 98” (Ondaatje). Murch was single handedly responsible for the decision to edit that way; therefore, he was able to shape the story in a more cohesive and stylistic manner than was in the original screenplay.
What Do Editors Bring to a Film?
"One of your obligations as an editor is to drench yourself in the sensibility of the film, to the point where you're alive to the smallest details... The editor is the only one who has time to deal with the whole jigsaw... To actually look at all the film the director has shot, and review it and sort through it." Murch explains (Ondaatje). The editor is the only person in the crew that actually watches every take of every shot and must take note of everything with a high level of precision. The level of detail the editor takes in really is immeasurable in comparison to other people who work in the movie industry. There is an almost obsessive quality in which he or she reviews the film. A lot of trust is put in the editor from the whole crew, especially the director. In many cases, directors have to trust the taste of their lead editor more than their own. They become too emotionally invested in specific shots or scenes because they are the most involved person on set. The goal of any editor is to create visual harmony, not to jar the audience, and to carry the story emotionally with the footage he or she is presented. “Ultimately I think what I need her [Thelma] to watch for me is the emotional impact of the picture...keeping track emotionally of the characters.” Michael Scorsese said of his long-time editor, Thelma Schoonmaker (Apple). The editor also constructs performance. Unbeknown to most actors, editors do not simply pull the actor’s best take of a scene but rather reconstruct moments from several takes in order to simulate a continuous action and convincing performance. Editors are actually much more responsible for the timing and execution of a performance than they are credited for. “Most actors will learn very early on that the editor is the one to make friends with. Their performance depends a great deal on the editor and the tastes and the talents of the editor.” George Lucas, director of the Star Wars movies stated (Apple). Some editors have even gone as far as saying only the act of editing makes for great actors and great theatrical delivery. A bit extreme, but understandably, many editors have grown tired of seeing actors glorified for a performance that is equally dependent on editing as acting. “We totally control the performance of an actor in the cutting room, actually. A lot of them [actors] won’t admit that.” editor Peter Honess stated, clearly exasperated. (Apple). Video cutters combine many aspects of filmmaking in order to control the way a video is being interpreted by their viewers.
Comparing and Contrasting through My Editing
In a class I had my Junior year, one of our assignments was to shoot a scene with a group and then everyone had to edit that scene individually. We titled the scene we shot, The Dinner Party. It was a short clip of two women sitting across a dinner table from one another without speaking, quietly eating while they glare at each other. It was really fun shooting the scene but what was really fascinating to me was what everyone chose to do in post-production. That was the first time I was really exposed firsthand to what editing specifically brings to videos. Each person chose different shots, music, and color-corrected their scenes in unique ways tuned to their personal aesthetic. The tone of each of our videos is slightly different even though the story is the same. Omar chose to use extreme close up profile and portrait shots that heightened the uncomfortable intimacy of the situation. He also used cooler colors and re-formatted the footage to a wider format, which made the tension more obvious. I chose to keep my color correcting to a minimum and use primarily warm, pastel colors. My intentions with this color scheme were to mimic the indie film genre, particularly the stylistic choices of director Wes Anderson. The majority of the scene is composed of point of view over the shoulder shots. Medium profile shots or birds eye views make up the remainder of the footage. My intention with The Dinner Party was to convey an intimate, sexually suggestive relationship between the two women and an implied third person; therefor, creating an awkward and uncomfortable dynamic between the women in the scene. I don’t know what exactly Omar’s backstory for the characters was but I am sure it would have variations that lead to some of his stylistic decisions. Each person really brought his or her own backstories, styles, and expertise to the scene which opened my eyes to all of the possibilities contained within editing alone as well as the power it holds. As with any other art form, people bring their personal taste and style into editing. It may be invisible while watching a singular video, but the variations when contrasting the same footage compiled by two different people clearly demonstrates the level of creative artistic expression editing involves.
The Invisibility of Editing
Craig McKay, the editor known for Science of the Lambs, stated, “We call it [editing] the invisible art and indeed it is. I mean the more invisible we [editors] are, the better we’re doing our job” (Apple). Editing is referred to as the invisible art because the less noticeable it is in a film, the more the editor is considered good at his job. Editing is a craft that requires both an analytical attentive mindset and creative problem solving and experimentation. Stated by Mike Crisp, "It comes in a category somewhere between brain surgery at one extreme and tiling the bathroom floor at the other"(Apple). It can be categorized either as connective or expressive but far too often the expressive side gets swept under the rug. Good editing may not be recognized as widely because its entire intention is to go unnoticed. It is meant to create a flow that does not distract from the story and most importantly does not make the audience conscious of watching a film. “Ultimately there will be about five-thousand shots in the film and all of them have to ultimately be the right shot in the right place for the right length of time.” Murch explained (Apple). As easy as it is to ignore or overlook editing that is well done, it is even easier to notice when it is poorly done. "After each cut it takes a few milliseconds for the audience to discover where they should now be looking. If you don't carry their focus of interest across the cut points, if you make them search at every cut, they become disoriented and annoyed, without knowing why." (Ondaatje). The editor is one of the few people on the crew that sees the footage for the first time in the editing bay. He or she is not exposed to the behind-the-scenes nature of being on a physical film set. Maybe because editors are not on set during shooting, other members of the crew can often overlook them. Actress and director, Jodie Foster even admitted that although she has been in the film business for nearly fifty years, she did not really know what editing was until she witnessed it being done first-hand (Apple). The cutting room or the editing bay is very distant from the hustle and bustle of the rest of the set. It is a dark, intimate space to really analyze what has been shot. Perhaps it is the reclusive nature of the physical space where editing happens that separates or distances the act from crew member's minds. Whatever it may be, there is a clear disconnect between the relationship of editors to a film, and the relationship of editors to the crew. Editors are invisible in multiple ways; both to the crew during production as well as to the audience watching their artwork once the film is released. They are somewhat invisible amongst the general public considering a prestigious editor would not likely be spotted in a crowd of people. They are the unsung heroes of the film world, most content when their work goes undetected by its audience.
Editors as Artists
Editing is a strange gray area drifting somewhere between art form and craftwork. I consider editing an art form because it has the ability to create different meanings in cinema through the juxtaposition of video clips. It draws from and improves upon all the great art forms that have come before its time such as acting, photography, and dance or motion. Significance is created through combinations of images rather than individual frames themselves. The most important aspect of any art form is to make the viewer feel something. An artist’s ability to impact an audience in any emotional aspect is essential in creating important or memorable work, which is precisely why editing should be considered art. It combines musical score, soundtrack, movement, timing, composition and color into a time-based medium that I consider the most significant art form of our time. When all other aspects of a movie are well made and just the editing is poorly done, the film would still be considered a failure. It is something so easy to notice when it is off yet very difficult to appreciate when it is fitting for the feature. Although direction, performance, production, and every other factor in filmmaking is crucial to the process, editing holds a valid and uniquely individual place in the world of movie magic that deserves far more praise as an artform. Video editors deserve the gratification of being called artists.
