How Editing has the Power to Change a Film

Introduction:

First, I would like to preface this investigation by saying how this had not been the original, intended topic of discussion. Before, the question was, ‘How has the Rise in Consumerism Impacted the Film Industry?’ (or something along those lines). For a long span of time, little was able to be achieved and only a disappointing modicum of research had been gathered because I had other strains that I was focusing on, at the time; furthermore, there was a real lack of cogent material online to gather. I’m not saying there is none but, with time encroaching, I had been wasting too much time sifting through too much material that I could not effectively analyse. This is much, in part, due to the fact that the question tackled an area dealing with societal issues - issues where many people have many opinions on the matter - and all this serves to meld itself into a messy concoction where no real definition could be found. Perhaps, that would make for an excellent research article. Though for this, I had not put myself in a position where I was capable of detailing this in the time whilst abiding the guidelines the research project insists upon.

Anyway, I changed my investigation to the one you see now. It has a much greater, tangible and informative pool of books, articles and interesting case studies from which to indulge and learn from. Editing, I would say, has been my weakest point when it comes to making a film; when beginning this new research project, I had a far more clear and visible goal I wanted to achieve. I had a case study in mind which I was eager to undertake and explore and other books I saw which I was already interested in reading - purely for elevating my theoretical knowledge behind editing choices. Ultimately, I hoped to expand my knowledge of post-production and realise how much creative power it has in affecting a film.

Secondary Research

Book Reviews:

The Eye is Quicker

Film Editing: Making a Good Film Better

Overview:

This authentic “how-to” guide - adaptable to all tools and technologies - is a comprehensive book on the principles, methods, and strategies vital to the creative art of film editing.

Pepperman’s vibrant approach uses dozens of terrific sequences from a wide array of films, from the popular to the hidden gems, all in order to teach one how editing can make a good film better (as titular). He defines what is constant in all great work and gives the reader all the tips they need to become an auspicious editor.

It is an indispensable guide for screenwriters, directors and editors covers the following:

• Makes clear what is practical in editing theory

• Is filled with tips on quick and simple editing techniques

• Provides a guide to “what stays” and “what gets left out”

• Offers specific strategies to “find” scenes and sequences

• Illustrates how to enrich a film actor’s performance

• Presents a concise understanding of “beats” and “rhythms”

Review:

An interesting and enlightening chapter springs to mind when reviewing this book; that is chapter 16, titled: ‘Reactions Speak Louder than Words’. As one may be able to distinguish, the chapter focuses and discusses dialogue editing and narration within a movie, utilising reaction shots, emphasising character without unnecessary dialogue and, ultimately, highlighting the use of juxtaposition in images to tell a story - making the most of the potential that cinema can offer. One particular example that the book brings up, an example that strangely took me off-guard, was an analysis of an interrogation scene in ‘Law and Order’. Pepperman (2004) goes on to say how, “On paper, the dialogue, ‘makes perfect sense’... it doesn’t appear problematic” (Pepperman 2004, p.163). Yet, of course, when it comes to editing the scene the, “actors’ ‘expressions’ can be effectively - emotionally - read, and therefore ‘played’ and attuned” (Pepperman 2004, p.163). From this, Pepperman explains how the victim character’s last lines should be deleted from the scene - elevating the moment and making a powerful beat. The reaction, alone, is all that is needed and evokes far more emotion from the audience. Also, the absence of this line makes the interrogator's last line become far more intense, bringing an eloquent ambivalence to the audience which would have been lessened or removed if that one line had been kept in.

Overall, this section of the book had me rapt in the whole creative adage ‘less is more’ and educated me on how kernel editing is on, essentially, ‘re-writing’ the script. It is usually said that a screenplay is re-written a minimum of three times: once through pre-production, once through production and once through post-production. The book, as a whole, encapsulates how movies can be ruined or rectified all due to how it is edited in the post-production process. This is bolstered as Pepperman references Dede Allen saying, “The hardest thing to learn… is how to correct what’s wrong without harming what’s good.” Editing raises the level of a film and assembles the film together - for better or for worse. But, of course, the book dignifies the reader through tips on what and what not to do in order to arrange a film for greatest effect.

“Preservation of the Reaction - rather than the On-Camera speaker - as the decisive influence in a Dialogue scene requires an integration of four aspects:

1. Contemplation: Audience ‘reads’ a character’s expression(s)

2. Anticipation: Audience ‘understands’ that a character is ‘getting the idea’

3. Observation: Audience sees the place and the spatial relationship(s) of the characters within the scene setting

4. Participation: Audience is immediately ‘in the scene’ “

(Pepperman 2004, p.167)

The Technique of Film Editing

Overview:

‘The Technique of Film Editing’ is more than a conventional textbook. It bases its arguments on practical examples - excerpts from famous films analysed by, or with the help of, the makers; it avoids hard-and-fast rules but states the problems as they arise in practice and proceeds from there.

It is said that the book is ‘probably the most successful film textbook in English, and has had a great influence on the technique of cinema’. The first edition, published in 1953, was reprinted thirteen times without a word being changed. In 1968, a fourth section was added to the book but the original text was printed as it stood. The second edition was also reprinted thirteen times with the last reprint in 2000.

The book comprises of four distinct sections:

Section 1 concerns the history of editing

Section 2 deals with the practice of editing

Section 3 lays out the principles of editing

Section 4 details the development of cinema editing through the ‘fifties and sixties’

Review:

A particular sub-section, within section 1 of the book, titled: Who edits a film? (Reisz and Millar, 1968, p. 45) stands out to me as an important part of the book. The sub-section begins with how 'fundamental editing principles,’ (Reisz and Millar, 1968, p. 45) had become common knowledge by that time. It also says that the way in which these principles were used may vary from the silent days but that their dramatic usefulness had remained substantially unaltered. One other thing it mentions is how sound and other technical innovations had brought about, ‘minor changes’ (Reisz and Millar, 1968, p. 45) about how editing is done and how it affects a film. One must remember, though, that this section of the book was originally published in 1953. From this, I mean in no manner to devalue the importance of this book but this constrains the book as sound editing has come far since then with some films developing and meriting full sound-scapes which can, especially in the realms of science-fiction, really aid in bringing an audience into the world the film sets-up. That would be my one criticism of the book. Otherwise, the pointers and insight it divulges about visual editing are remarkable lends itself to being one of the most widely reprinted film-making books.

Article Reviews:

The Importance of Editing in Movies

What happens when the editor doesn’t get to do their job, from The Hobbit, through to Harry Potter?

Overview:

As the subtitle suggests, this article discusses several films (‘The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies’, ‘Hunger Games’, ‘Taken 2’, ‘Harry Potter’ and even ‘Doctor Who’) all in relation to how editing impacts the films to how the films, themselves, affecting the way editing is conducted in post-production across Hollywood.

Review:

‘The Hobbit: Battle of the Five of the Armies’ is the first point of criticism from the author. He began, ‘noticing the cuts between the shots’ (Blair, 2015) in the film and goes on to explain how one, ideally, does not take note of the behind-the-scenes instead of being involved in the story. The only time when a cut should be explicitly observed is when it is, ‘something impressive’ (Blair, 2015) and he says that this is not the case with ‘The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies’. As a result, The film feels as though it has been rushed together. A large proportion of the content was said that it, ‘didn’t feel necessary’ (Blair, 2015).

This leads on to the insightful, core message of the article whereby Blair claims how studios, producing these big-budget films made to be a franchise, are intent on relying on its popularity because, ‘Why go to the trouble of editing something down when you can release two films and probably make more money?’ (Blair, 2015). This divergence from the adage, ‘less is more’ lends itself to removing the creative freedom from the story editor just so the studio can make more money - even if this sacrifices a tighter, stronger narrative.

The article goes through to reference a ‘Doctor Who’ story, specifically the ‘Genesis of the Daleks’ which is considered one of the best ‘Doctor Who’ stories to-date. It discloses how this came about because Barry Letts said, ‘No’ to an unoriginal story pitch. Blair compares this, ‘strong voice’ (Blair, 2015) to one that is needed in editing for it to be effective. This all strengthens the argument of sharpening the film through editing rather than leaving it bloated; sometimes an editor has to be rather cut-throat to obtain the best results.

Overall, I shall leave you with the final, summative quote from the article that clearly states what we learn from these: ‘Editing is not a job that garners as much praise as, say, cinematography or special effects, but it's vital at every stage of the creative process. It needs time. It doesn’t often get it.’

Editing - The Invisible Art in Film

Overview:

All through this article, the web page discusses how editing can be as simple as cutting two images together but can be made complex to the point where the meaning of a scene, or indeed an entire piece of work, can be altered via editing’s nuances.

Review:

The author of the article brings-up a great point about how editing has come along way since the days of physically cutting and pasting together strips of film. Now, with computers - and the, ‘advanced computer programs’ (Clayton, 2012) that come with them - editors have been given, ‘a range of expression and freedom never seen before’ (Clayton, 2012). This, I feel, highlights how the progression of technology has increased editing’s versatility; it proves how editing has become a fundamental creative tool in film-making. Indeed - as I have seen in the other research conducted - editing has always been a significant part of film production from the early days of silent film. Yet, this brings to light the development of the form and cements editing as integral, in not only creating a desired effect, but that it also has the power to completely subvert a film and its meaning.

Why is Post-Production Important?

Overview:

‘Editing is one of the most important parts of a film production.’ (Mears, 2016) This is the first line of the article and it hits straight at the point. It expands upon this, exploring ways in which an experienced editor thinks and does to generate the best results from the clips they are given.

Review:

When it comes to editing, it’s all about pacing and timing. Reviewing all the footage to find the clips to cut between can ‘take time, and skill’ (Mears, 2016). Clips used and cut together must show motivation, and very often music is a key factor for pacing. Additionally, colour correction is incredibly important in editing. With colour, the mood is built to ‘go along with the tone already established via pacing and music’ (Mears, 2016). A key element that has only been lightly touched-on, so far, is the nature of colour and how that can really influence the mood of a scene or the film as a whole; this article is good in divulging that aspect and bringing it some attention.

‘Audio is often overlooked, but is probably THE most important part of post production.’ (Mears, 2016) In contrast with other research done (the book review of ‘The Technique of Film Editing) where that played-down the significance of audio, this lauds it; I agree with acknowledging audio editing’s importance as it can expressly place emphasis on pacing of a scene, but I could understand why, at the time, audio would not have seen as important because the technological advances were yet to fully develop into what they are today. ‘The audience needs to hear clearly what is being presented, and during post production audio is tweaked and sweetened to ensure this in the case.’ (Mears, 2016)

Primary Research

Case Study

How Star Wars was Saved in the Edit

Introduction:

In February 1977, director George Lucas launched a test screening of his new film, Star Wars (1977). He invited a select group of people to view a rough version of the film. Some of the attendees consisted of a few of his closest friends and people who he had known from his days at USC (University of Southern California), studying film-making; Steven Spielberg, Brian De Palma were present for the viewing. The documentary Empire Of Dreams: The Story Of The Star Wars Trilogy Extended Version. (2004) shows that Spielberg recalled how De Palma had reacted to this rough cut saying, how he, “went off the deep end,” and further exclaimed, “What? Makes no sense! Nonsense!” Therefore, it could be argued that the reception was quite poor. Some of this could be attributed to unfinished visual effects, place-holder sound effects, use of stock footage and a multitude of minute issues, in general, that had to do with it not being finished. This should not have been the case but due to ILM (still in its infantile stages as a company, at the time) expending great resources and time engineering new techniques in visual effects, the theatrical release would be delayed from December 1976 to the summer of 1977. Clearly, then, they were tight on time. Though, the issues that this case study will focus on a few parts that were fundamental in nature, such as: the story, the scenes, the characters and the pacing. All of which were altered, in some form or another, during post-production into what audiences saw in 1977. Today, it stands as a fine testament to the power of editing.

The Opening of Star Wars’ Rough Version:

Originally, the now notorious text crawl that occurs at the beginning of the film was far longer and verbose to what it became.

Below is a screenshot taken of the original Star Wars (1977) script, depicting the original title-crawl sequence:

One can easily see, from this, that the film was already bombarding the audience with too much information, much of which was unnecessary. De Palma was particularly critical of this opening and, in this, Lucas actually enlisted his help writing what we now know as the opening text crawl of the film. The final version was straight to the point, its information concise and pertains more to the story that the audience is about to experience. Ultimately, the final version is superior in its effectiveness of bringing the audience into the film and all it took was editing the text - brilliantly showcasing how editing is not all about cuts and transitions.

Luke’s Introduction:

(The above flow-chart shows how the scenes progressed in the rough cut of the film)

After the text crawl, the opening of the rough cut began almost exactly as shown in theatres. However, later on when the Storm-Troopers have breached the rebel ship, the sequence intercuts with the character of Luke - the protagonist of the story. The fact that an intense scene is interrupted three times drains the pacing of it all dramatically. Not to mention, the intercuts of Luke are rather superfluous in the grand scheme of the film; again, like the text crawl, the information depicted in those scenes are not needed to further the story or character.

The deletion of these intercuts from the final version only generates one infinitesimal issue: the character of Biggs. In the rough version, he and his relationship with Luke are introduced here, right at the start, but in the final version he is seen only when the Rebel forces gather their forces to attack the Death Star; it could be disputed that he seems to appear out of nowhere yet somehow know Luke well. Of course, their relationship is re-iterated to the audience through the dialogue of the encounter but their ephemeral moments together don’t add so much weight to his death in the final battle. This may be considered a real nit-pick but I feel it is important to provide some balance in this analysis. Also, it reinforces the lesson that an edit must give more than what it takes and, in this instance, it was most certainly the right call to have removed these scenes because they serve to slow everything down and would have prevented the infamous, intense, action-packed opening from being just that; the trade off with Biggs’ character pales in comparison with nailing those opening minutes of the film and drawing the audience into the story.

One of the editors of Star Wars (1977), Paul Hirsch, states in The Making of Star Wars (1978) that, “In the first five minutes, we were hitting everybody with more information than they could handle… There were too many storylines to keep straight: the robots and the Princess, Vader, Luke. So, we simplified it by taking Luke out and you don’t introduce Luke until he becomes a part of the story.” All this bolsters the idea of maintaining a driving narrative through the opening act as a way of making more riveting for the audience. Hirsch goes on to say how removing the scenes with Luke at the start makes the planet that the droids (C3PO & R2D2) land on, “work as an alien place,” and that showing people inhabiting that planet caused the place to have, “no mystery” and thus the audience wouldn’t be as curious or frightened because without the opening Luke scenes, “you didn’t know what you were going to find”. Just by cutting three scenes, the pace of the film has been greatly ramped-up whilst also strengthening intrigue in the world and the story.

The Rest of the First Act:

(The above timeline shows the order which the scenes play out in the rough version of the film)

(Below is the same timeline but with the scenes as ordered in the final version of the film)

The underlying needle that threads the lesson together is that an editor has the power and responsibility of controlling the ‘flow’ of information in a film and how one scene should lead into the next based on what the audience knows at that point.

The pivotal scene that was transposed further down the timeline was the conference scene on the Death Star where Darth Vader ends up force chokes an imperial officer. In the rough version, this would be where the audience first learns of ‘The Force’ and its nature rather than hearing it from Obi Wan. Moving this scene to later on in the story not only boosts the pace - as we see the imperial forces hunting down the droids instead - it also allows for better pay-offs from the scenes that preceded it. From this, we are more enlightened about the Force by Obi Wan and receive the pay-off with Obi Wan mentioning how Vader was, “seduced by the dark side,” and then seeing it in the conference scene when using it to asphyxiate someone. It was said that after this one scene was moved, the rest fell into place; each scene now had a more definitive and satisfying pay-off to the ones that came before, working far more harmoniously together in tandem with gripping the audience into the story.

Case Study Conclusion:

Much of what was addressed in this case study occurs in or near the beginning of the film. There are many other alterations and changes that were made to get the final version but I felt the opening - a crucial make-or-break part of any film - was most important to discuss because had those changes not been made then the film would not have been anywhere near as successful as it was. Perhaps, if Star Wars had flopped, many areas of the film industry would have been very different from then on.

Looking at how the film was refined through relentless craftsmanship, Star Wars (1977) should be a lesson to all film-makers on how much power editing has and its effects on the film’s success. Of course, though, it wasn’t just editing but the film-maker’s tireless work, effort and commitment that created a gem in cinema history. In the end, there is little wonder why it won the Oscar for best editing - amongst many others.

Project Conclusions:

All in all, the research I have gathered, read over, considered and analysed has emphasised how editing is so utterly crucial to the film-making process. It is not that I did not value the importance of editing in film, but this project has actually made me realise that I may have almost underestimated the sheer power and creativity that effective editing can infuse a film with.

It is certainly interesting reviewing more antiquated pieces of work addressing the editing sect of film-making, in comparison with newer works on the same matter. One thing that stood out from this is witnessing the expansion and increased creative flexibility that editing has gained, particularly in sound editing. What else is intriguing is that editing has also been affected by corporate interest with editing’s creativity being shattered in order to prolong a franchise. Learning from this is that editing, even in fully-fledged, big-budget films, is sometimes not given enough time to be fully actualised, showing that - no matter what level - editing must be given some priority and time as it can, in fact, be the ‘make or break’ stage of film production.

Ultimately, the effect editing can have on a film, especially showcased in the case study conducted, is undeniable in its significance.

Bibliography (Harvard References):

Secondary Research:

Pepperman, R.D. (2004) The Eye is Quicker. Michael Wiese Productions.

Reisz, K. and Millar, G. (1968) The Technique of Film Editing. 2nd Edition. Focal Press.

Blair, A. (2015) The Importance of Editing in Movies: What happens when the editor doesn’t get to do their job, from The Hobbit, through to Harry Potter? Den of Geek. [Online] January 16th 2015. Available from: https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/hobbit/the-importance-of-editing [Accessed 26th January 2020]

Clayton, T. (2012). Editing - The Invisible Art in Film. [Online] Available from: http://dailytrojan.com/2012/02/21/editing-the-invisible-art-in-film/

[Accessed: 27th January 2020]

Mears J. (2016) Why is Post-Production Important? Available from: https://intersectvideo.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/why-is-post-production-important/

[Accessed: 27th January 2020]

Primary Research:

Star Wars. (1977) Film. Directed by George Lucas. [DVD] 20th Century Fox.

Empire Of Dreams: The Story Of The Star Wars Trilogy Extended Version. (2004) Directed by Kevin Burns and Edith Becker. [DVD] Disney-ABC Domestic Television.

The Making of Star Wars. (1978) Directed by Robert Guenette. [DVD] 20th Century Fox.