Long shots/quick cuts

[Evan Kubota]

How would you characterize your direction and editing style? A lot of long shots (more towards European/Japanese), or faster-paced "transparent" editing in the Hollywood mode?

I started thinking about this because my current project is horror-oriented; I'm not going to apply the traditional 'shock' techniques from American horror, though. The cold, inescapable sense of languid shots revealing horrific images seems much more powerful to me. "Eyes Without a Face" was inspiring in that sense. I hope the combination of long, smooth shots and gruesome imagery works well.

[mattias]

i wouldn't. and if i would neither of these alternatives would be right. ;-) i generally cut (and direct) to maintain a point of view, which means that the "correct" style for a scene comes more or less natural and it's always different.

/matt

[steve hyde]

I wouldn't try to characterize my style either. Partially because it is rather underdeveloped at this point, but I will say for me editing style depends on content. I watched "MurderBall" a documentary on quadraplegic rugby players last night. It's a first-rate DVX project that looks fine, sounds great and is cut with precise care. I recommend it.

The editing style is MTV. (characterized by fast-paced cuts) It is actually an MTV co-production. Usually the kind of stuff I avoid, but in this case the style fits the content.

I guess what I'm saying is the editing style has to work with the rhythms of the content.

"Long shots" do you mean *long takes*? I think of long shots as a distance thing....

In my opinion long takes are great for establishing place and for contemplative moments.

[Evan Kubota]

"which means that the "correct" style for a scene comes more or less natural and it's always different."

Nevertheless, Ozu directing a short script by a certain writer would probably give a different result in terms of editing than handing it off to Michael Bay.

Obviously the content dictates much of the flow, but in my experience individual cut points can be subtly varied within a scene without drastically altering the content. Some directors/editors tend to abbreviate action cuts whereas others leave in a few more frames, giving a looser feel. I guess I do either depending on the situation, but I was interested in finding out if anyone could characterize their style in general.

[npcoombs]

I am drawn to the long take, but only to the extent that it is appropriate for the material.

Thare are many types of long takes however and they need not express opne style or the other intrinsically. For instance Russian Ark fills its single take with volumes of movement and characters (up to 2000 extras) whereas Tarkovsky or earlier Sokurov films will use it to emphasize isolation and contemplation. In Bela Tarr's later work the long shot becomes an end in itself, but Tarr successfully matches it to inculcate dread and paranoia.

To me the directors that utilize the long take often manage to make the viewer inhabit the scene more intensely. This may sometimes involve soporific spells and other moments of hallucinatory intensity. This is the viewer's dialogue with the scene. On the other hand, a rapid editing style frequently manufactures its own intensities and hence is monological, it does not open up a space for the viewer to engage with the image on a self-determined level.

There are of course, numerous hades in between the extremes of MTV and Bela Tarr's work.

[timdrage]

Whichever!

My super-8 is usually short bursts of running around, pixilation etccc.

Maybe one day I'll get the supermag + do Tarkofsky-esque 20 minute takes tho!

[mattias]

Nevertheless, Ozu directing a short script by a certain writer would probably give a different result in terms of editing than handing it off to Michael Bay.

yes, what i mean wasn't that there's no difference between my style and other directors', just that my style varies more than that between projects. i think i have a fairly unique way of visualizing stories, but it manifests itself differently all the time.

/matt

[Alex_W]

"Long shots" do you mean *long takes*? I think of long shots as a distance thing....

You're right steve. A long shot is a shot of the character's (or object's)complete body and further away.

A long take is a take long(er) in time.


I really enjoy seeing framing within a long take, the kind you can find with Antonioni or the opening scene of Touch of Evil.
I don't really plan for these shots myself, because i prefer framing with cuts when shooting handheld or on a tripod, which probably always results in a faster rythm. You would want nice steady shots when you use long takes, otherwise you give an amateurish quality to the images which i don't really like.

I think it was Bazin who first advocated a film style where editing would be replaced by deepfocus shots, different action on different image planes and the long take, since to him it heigthened the realism in the film. I don't really agree with his claim to realism, but i sure do like the movies that sort of conform to this idea.

[npcoombs]

I think it was Bazin who first advocated a film style where editing would be replaced by deepfocus shots, different action on different image planes and the long take, since to him it heigthened the realism in the film. I don't really agree with his claim to realism, but i sure do like the movies that sort of conform to this idea.

Agreed.

[Evan Kubota]

"different action on different image planes...I don't really agree with his claim to realism, but i sure do like the movies that sort of conform to this idea."

Have you seen Klimov's Idi i smotri (Come and See)? There's a fantastic shot near the middle of the film where the extreme foreground and background are in focus and the middle area is out of focus. I assume it was dual filmed.

I have to say that IMO Eisenstein's conception of editing and theory has been more influential on modern filmmaking than Bazin's, at least on a superficial level. Not necessarily what I prefer, but that's another issue.

I need to build a dolly for my current project.

And yes, I meant long take, not long shot.

[Alex_W]

No, never seen it, but the description really makes me want to. I was glad to see my videostore has a VHS copy.

[freddiesykes]

I am more of a long take, long shot, no camera movement, minimalist kind of director/editor. Think Takeshi Kitano. Does anyone else think that this is very hard to implement? Most people have such short attention spans these days; they get ancy if a shot holds for more than five seconds.

[timdrage]

Most people have such short attention spans these days; they get ancy if a shot holds for more than five seconds.

I wouldn't worry too much about it; "most people" aren't gonna be watching the avarage independent super-8 film!

I think it's a catch-22 situation; the audience have short attention spans because they're used to watching movies made by people who assume the audience have short attention spans... :?

[freddiesykes]

Very good points, Tim. I agree completely.