Editing Style

farss wrote on 12/20/2004, 3:22 PM
I've been asked to edit a 90 min telemovie, well actually I'll be about the nth guy to have a crack at it.
I got to watch some of it as I transferred it yesterday and was asked to comment, to me some of the editing 'style' is way off the mark yet I was told this is the 'modern' way!
Consider this, poolside party, cut to broken vase on floor inside house, cut to family rushing into room to find body with skull caved in.
Now to my geriatric brain this will work where either we expect someone to get done in or where there's some connection, say sound of gunshot, startled looks from party guests, THEN cut to bleeding body and then shot of people rushing into room. Without something that cues us for the closeup, my brain just goes 'what the?'
This is only an example and the storyline is quite a bit more complex with several threads running through it. When you switch from one thread to another I expect some cue that that's happened, be it a change in color space or whatever, just cutting to a closeup which has no connection to the previous shot as the into to a thread looses me totally.
Maybe it's my age, anyone else got a different spin on this?

Bob.

Comments

p@mast3rs wrote on 12/20/2004, 3:28 PM
It sounds to me as if someone is inveting their "modern day" technique. If you know how it should be done, i would do it that way unless your client is paying major bucks then I would do it both ways and show them how your way has a better flow and ability to make the storyline logical. I hope that makes sense.
farss wrote on 12/20/2004, 4:10 PM
Sure does, did I forget to mention, no money upfront, just a 'share'?
Bob.
p@mast3rs wrote on 12/20/2004, 4:17 PM
If all you are getting is a share, I would do it your way. I mean afterall, you know there way will deliver not much of a share whereas your way will deliver more a share and make more sense. Explain it in dollars and cents to them. You could cut their way and make a few bucks or cut it your way and make 10 times it. Clients are usually more open to change when they realize they can make more money.
jackal wrote on 12/21/2004, 11:11 AM
Dig into the old stuff that did the new stuff the right way before MTV.
Hint the events (sound design technique alludes and foreshadows) and follow through the disjointed images with examination of the scene, slowing in editorial speed as the facts become evident. The beginning will seem surreal and the events that unwind later will cushion the confusion.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 12/21/2004, 12:03 PM
If you want it to look like a Rembrandt, don't ask Degas to do it! Right?

Regardless, all any one person can do is contribute their style, whatever it may be. Unless you have the director hovering over your shoulder telling you every cut to make, then by all means, do what you know to be best based on the material in front you and your experience.

Jay
craftech wrote on 12/22/2004, 3:52 AM
That scene might work if you run it backwards. Body to party. Otherwise, Do you even have footage of "startled guests to work with?

John
BrianStanding wrote on 12/22/2004, 9:13 AM
That scene might work just with audio as a cue. Charge your client for a copy of Sony's Sound Effects disks (if you don't have them already) -- or record your own. Find the sound of a breaking vase, a groan and a falling body (maybe a slamming door?).

Lay the sound under the party, cut to startled people, cut to broken vase, cut to brained corpse. If you don't have a "startled people" reaction shot, maybe you can do something with a whip-pan or some other kind of "disorientation" footage that you might normally throw away.
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 12/22/2004, 10:02 AM
To me, it sounds like the kind of editing that they are talking about will mean that for your share, you'll have to pay out instead of pulling in money. (It made absolutely no sense to me) and I've had plenty of hours watching lots of T.V. to know. So you can be assured that the advice that you get from me on T.V. is going to be from a professional. :)

Dave