NLE editing downside: Too Easy, Too Quick

[MovieStuff]

Maybe I'm old fashion but I find the frenzied cutting pace of some action films to be just too much to follow sometimes and, often, quite unnecessary. Very telling is when I also see behind the scenes footage of the same action before being cut and I can finally see the follow through on what's happening much better than in the final cut of the same damned scene! I think that NLE editing is terrific but the ease of being able to cut your footage into teeny, tiny segments and stringing them together as some sort of hyper-kinetic animation is becoming mistaken for effective editing of otherwise well shot footage. Probably the editor becomes so familiar with the footage that he forgets the audience hasn't seen it before and doesn't know what to look for. Perhaps he should cut the entire scene flopped horizontally and then watch the final edit flopped back to normal so that he has to reorient himself, just like the audience would. I know from talking to an old Hollywood editor they used to do that long ago by flipping the workprint. Gave them a fresh perspective.

What's worse is that the trailers for these films then cut from one thing to another at the same, frenzied pace (usually to the same repetitive chorous chants in latin that everyone else uses) and that makes the trailer simply stupid and ineffective. Obviously they don't want to tell the entire story in the trailer, I understand that. But there is a difference between providing limited information and providing limited coherency. There have been a couple of films that I finally saw on DVD that were surprisingly better than I expected because the trailers made them look, I dunno, lazy-quick (is that a word?).

Anyway, that's entirety of my bitch for the morning.
Here's the trailer for it (imagine latin chants in the background):

Maybe-old-find-frenzied-pace-action- too-much-footage-before-cut -better-NLE-tiny-segments-animation-mistaken-editor-forgets-audience
-perhaps-flopped-horizontally-reorient-himself-editor-long-ago-flipping
-workprint-gave-perspective-trailers-frenzied-latin-stupid-don't-tell-story
-I-understand-difference-limited-information-limited-coherency-
DVD-better-trailers-lazy-quick.


Roger

[Evan Kubota]

I'm not sure that NLEs specifically have anything to do with it - shrinking attention spans certainly do, and this could be argued as necessitating a change in the form of films by their creators, rather than the other way around. If audiences honestly felt that most films were "too fast" you'd hear about it. In my experience most people seem comfortable with the pace and editing of current Hollywood offerings - which is somewhat frightening.

[Alex_W]

Here's a man who would not take it anymore...

I guess you're right, but there's a lot of really good stuff that completely makes up for all the crap.

[BK]

Maybe the new generation of directors and film editors have been brought up on a heavy dose of MTV.

I have noticed very fast cutting, jump cuts, and overdose of effects seems to be the trend nowadays and this doesn't apply just to action films.

With the ease of non-linear editing and the simplicity of changing the order of edits quickly, there seems to be indecisiveness on the directors part on how it should be edited, the scope to experiment is easier and quicker compared to the old style of editing with a workprint using a Movieola or Steenbeck. The director might be happy with todays edit but the next day he changes his mind and wants to cut it in a different way and this would go on and on, till he is exhausted or fed up with it.

I remember master Hitchcock's film Rope with the continuous 10 min long takes, what a difference compared to todays fast pace style edits.

Bill

[Alex_W]

I remember master Hitchcock's film Rope with the continuous 10 min long takes, what a difference compared to todays fast pace style edits.

Not really comparable, as Rope has always been an exception to normal editing standards.

[twotoneska]

I think there is something to be said about limitation, especially the kind of "limitation"offered up by the old Steenbecks and K.E.M.'s. People seem to forget that alot of their favorite films, including many up to the late nineties and even early two-thousands were edited on these machines, and NOT Final Cut or Avid.

I've already been chided for this, but King Kong was too fast for me! Had they slowed it down, though, it would probably have been a five hour film, and that's no good.

The problem, I think, though, is diminishing returns. The faster everything is made, the faster the audience wants it. The more ground is broken, the more ground must be broken. Eventually, there isn't much editors (whether they be in features, music video's or commercials) will be able to do to impress the audience any more. That's why films like "Goodnight and Good Luck" are a breathe of fresh air for me. No tricks. Just good filmmaking.

[JGrube]

Quote:
I remember master Hitchcock's film Rope with the continuous 10 min long takes, what a difference compared to todays fast pace style edits.


Not really comparable, as Rope has always been an exception to normal editing standards.

It's one of the most extreme examples. I always think of "The Big Sleep" as one of my favorite examples of a well paced film with conservative editing and camera movement: never too much of either, just enough to keep it moving.

I have no inherent problem with fast paced editing, providing it serves a purpose (Roger Corman's "The Trip" does a great job of replicating a psychadelic experience with insane cross cutting and fast edits). I have to agree that often, crazy fast editing today seems to be a way to avoid ennui, especially when there's something else lacking (character, plot, etc.).

For example: I can't watch CSI anymore, the "dramatic hand-held camera" plus the "post-modern Russian montage" is just worn out for me. I'm more and more of a Jim Jarmusch fan every day.

Best,

Jason

[sarmoti]

I've heard Spielberg repeatedly mention that he doesn't want to edit on a computer, he likes the ability to create a cut and walk away from it while the editor is splicing it so he can have time to think about it.

I personally like the convenience of non linear editing although it's sick that I miss cutting my fingers with the film every now and then. I also like the mechanical nature and feel of a flatbed editor.

[T-Scan]

I agree, and my friends mention it as well, that editing has gotten a bit abnoxious. It doesn't flow at all.. a lot of it comes out as sporatic caos. a result of going banannas with the cuts, just because you can.

[johnnhud]

You want to see somthing with to many edits? Just watch the X-Games intro's and advertisments. I prefer a slower paced edit myself, I always thing of the scene in Resivore Dogs where Mr. Blond leaves the cop to walk out to his car to get the can of gas, then back again. All one take. Beautiful...

[sarmoti]

The good thing about computers is how easy it is to organize and keep track of your footage. I can't tell you how many times I almost lost it looking through the bin for a tail of a shot I cut days before because I needed an extra 3 frames.

FYI, I cut on a computer before I ever cut on film.

[steve hyde]

.... It's just a cutting style that works well with some content and not very well in many cases. In general I hate it. I like to have the opportunity to inhabit a scene. Jump cuts don't allow for this. For me the vast bulk of action films are rubish anyway.

That said, I think Zhang Yimou's HERO is a good example of how great action films can be. The brillance behind Yimou's method seems to be a reliance on choreography instead of dizzying jump cuts. Yimou uses a lot of long takes.

I wouldn't blame the style of editing on the technology.

Steve

[Mitch Perkins]

Anyway, that's entirety of my bitch for the morning.
Here's the trailer for it (imagine latin chants in the background):

Maybe-old-find-frenzied-pace-action- too-much-footage-before-cut -better-NLE-tiny-segments-animation-mistaken-editor-forgets-audience
-perhaps-flopped-horizontally-reorient-himself-editor-long-ago-flipping
-workprint-gave-perspective-trailers-frenzied-latin-stupid-don't-tell-story
-I-understand-difference-limited-information-limited-coherency-
DVD-better-trailers-lazy-quick.


Roger

LOL! ~:?)

Seems the digital "democratization" of filmmaking did not guarantee a similar democratization of "having a knack for storytelling." Talent doesn't come in a box...

Still, guns don't kill people, etc...

Mitch

[S8 Booster]

read just the 3 first lines of your post and agree, agree, agree to the extent that i posted a similar one so long time ago that it was probably on the old forum because i cant find it searching.

anyway, ive been pissed by this for - ever since nle was introduced - decade(s) ago probably first for TV films and ever since with feature films

anyways, i hlove those 10 minute takes on italian, spanish or french films. dialogue brought into focus.


dual s//hoot

[MovieStuff]

.
I wouldn't blame the style of editing on the technology.

That's fair. NLE is no more to blame for rapid-fire cuts than video is for excessive take after take after take. And having short cuts isn't new or even unique to NLE. If you look at the chase scene in the French Connection, there are some clips that are only a few frames long and that was done the old fashioned way. But NLE certainly facilitates this sort of thing, that's for certain, and the degree to which it is abused is greater now because it is so easy to do. The most amazing thing is that the director should be able to see that it is wrong right away. I mean, that's the whole point of digital NLE! But, as I say, he and the editor are probably too close to the project by that point and know the footage too well to notice how disorienting the rapid cutting is.

Roger