Director or Editor or both :: Whose job is this ?
Some directors are editors also. Hrishikesh Mukharjee always enjoyed editing more than the direction. Tight editing is reflected in his films. Tight editing is the demand of the time also especially when film belongs to low budget category and there is no money to waste.
But there are very few directors who are editors also. Shekhar Kapur believes that he should have a woman editor so that her post shooting works can bring a balance in the footage he has shot from a male director’s point of view. He had liked immensely the editing work of Late Renu Saluja in Bandit Queen.
I have got this curiosity that what is better situation.
(1) A director is a good editor also Ala Hriskhesh Mukharjee. As Then he has full command on post shooting work also as he knows story well and the mood of the film he wanted to make so he can cut scenes at right spot and can mix scenes in right sequence. But this has one hazard as its one man show so if there are mistakes and monotonous mood in the film, it cant be corrected.
(2) Director is supported by a very good editor and hence director can get a different version from editing room as editor can have bit detached policy towards the shot material. This way also has this problem if Director and Editor both think in entirely different directions and editor wants to over shadow Director?s version then we will get a Khicharee version of the film.
I am recalled with few films where scenes had brought questions (rather objections) before me. There will be many other films but I am mentioning just few films.
Disclaimer : These are purely technical points and don?t take away other merits of the mentioned films and there is no trial to bring any degradation to below mentioned films. And I may be completely wrong in my observation.
(1) Pather Panchali
Satyajit Ray mostly worked with Editor Dulal Dutta and perhaps he himself had edited only one of his film. In Pather Panchali, his first film, which he had finished inspite of tremendous difficulties and shortage of funds, had one scene where old lady, Indir Thakur is searched in the forest by Apu and his sister Durga. Durga sees that old lady is sitting in a strange posture and her head is hiding inside her knees. She tries to shake her but she falls on ground and Durga finds her grandmother has been died.
Its clear to audience very much and scene could have been finished, but camera goes in near to face of old lady and we finds her mouth is moving. She was more then 80 years old and had clear wide gap in her pout and her lips are shaking in the scene.
Cameraman?s mistake could have been corrected by editor in editing room and scene could have been cut at the time when old lady?s body has fallen on the ground and Durga watches her. Such a master piece could have been saved from a mistake by apt editing.
[If someone has seen more closely and Bengali version has shown that She is not dead but rather living her last moments on dying bed then I offer my apologies for such conclusion made in haste]
(2) Eklavya
Vidhu Vinod Chopra had claimed that he took 5 years in writing the script of this film. It is very hard work to be involved in the writing of a script of single film for that long period. Eklavya had shown a man of principles and loyalty and he does not care if he has to give his own life to save his masters.
Though film had very foolish comic touch about Sanjay Dutt?s designation in the police deptt. He calls himself as DSP and rest all people call him as Inspector including Saif Ali Khan, Jacky and Jimmy Shergil. All are educated people who know what is the difference between a DSP and an Inspector. We can digest that Jacky and Jimmy address him as an Inspector because of their feudal arrogance but Saif Ali?s character is not shown as a follower of feudal sick attitude, hence his addressing Sanjay Dutt as Inspector is a mistake which could have been saved in editing room.
There is a scene where Eklavya (AB) gets to know that Jimmy Shergil has something to do with the killing of Boman Irani. He becomes angry and he wants to attack Jimmy but Sanjay Dutt guesses his reactions and stops him at right moment.
Later in a scene we see Jimmy Shergil is watching a film in a theatre. Eklavya reaches there and pretend to ask forgiving of Jimmy and seeks his blessings. Jimmy insults him and instructs him to get out. Then there is a dark scene after which Jimmy is found dead.
Now Eklavya?s pleading before Jimmy is totally against his character in the film. If scene was started in a way that Eklavya reaches to theatre and then dark scene starts without any false pleading then scene could have been in sync with the character of the Eklavya.
If Director had made that mistake then editor could have corrected it in editing room. Or editors are not allowed to suggest such points? I recall that post 1942-A love story, Vidhu Vinod Chopra was quoted saying that he was the best director in India. Is this the reason his editors cant suggest any good point?
Its said Mr Chopra is just perfectionist and he asked AB to try hundreds of false beards before he selected right one for him. Why such odd things happen in films of such perfectionist film makers?
(3) Hazaron Khwahishen Aisi
There are few other scenes also where tight editing could have brought right shape but one scene is very strong in memory.
This is just after the scene where KK along with his friends leaves Chitrangda Singh standing alone when they are informed that police is coming. Chitrangda is hurt and she is shown disillusioned while her family is enjoying ride in Jeep of Shiny Ahuja. In next scene there is a party arranged by some rich friend of these guys and KK tries to make truce with Chitrangda and ultimately they end up making love inside a room. Shiny watches their love making from the door and he is visibly hurt. He has been trying to make Chitrangda happy like a dog like devoted friend or lover but ultimately she has chosen once again KK who had cheated her when pressure of police was there.
Shiny is hurt and he comes away from the door leaving both the lovers enjoying physical hunger. Shiny?s leaving the door and going away sends clear message to audience that now he has clear understanding that Chitrangda can not be his lover. Scene is powerful but soon after few seconds we see a scene where Shiny is standing in lawn and he is surrounded by 2-3 friends (one has arranged the party) as if all are mourning his heart-break.
In next scene story takes jump of many years.
Story could have got more flow if Shiny was not shown standing in that situation. That was very awkward scene. I guess if Late Renu Saluja had been doing the editing she would have cut the scene at the point where Shiny leaves the door with visibly shaken face.
(4) Black Friday
Here also I will quote only one scene which has strong memory because of its lacking.
Just after getting responsibilities of being Incharge of the case from C of P, Rakesh Maria (KK) is shown having meeting with his subordinates. He explains to them the situation and asks them to form a team and arrest all the people having dubious character, who were arrested during the last riots. He says to them to use their informers. While he says this, scene shows us that subordinate police officers are contacting their informers (though later two officers are actually shown talking to their respective informers).
When KK mentions that be careful its month of Ramzan, scene carries us to scene of a mosque where thousands of people are offering prayers. Scene travels there for some moments and again come back in to the room where meeting is happening and he says, don’t hurt their religious sentiments, be strict, but be tactful.
Whole sequence suffers from lacking in the editing. Scenes which should have been shown later after KK’s speech, are shown before his speech or during his speech. And there is repetition of scenes with informer.
(5) The Blue Umbrella
Here again we see sequential disorder of scenes. In the film, Nand Kishor Khatri gets the umbrella by post. Its closed. he opens it and there are lots of scene he is enjoying the Umbrella.
[Scene A] Then he visits Lilawati and her husband and Umbrella is closed and he insists that Lilawati should not go to her parents home without having Umbrella and she and her husband can take his umbrella on rent.
[Scene B] after this villagers are requesting Nand Kishor Khatri to give his consent to become chief guest in the event of wrestling. He gives his insistence and when he is going to take bus to reach at the spot, he is shown to face struggle in closing the umbrella as he does not know how to close it and Biniya comes and helps him.
Ideally [Scene B] should exist in the film before [Scene A] because now he knows how to close it and therefore he goes at Lilawati’s place with closed umbrella.
* * * *
What is the exact role of editor? He is just an assistant of Director whose job is to cut and mix scenes together or he can have important part in reshaping the film post shooting?
Can he have command on the script of the film and thus saying in what should be the last version of film as director has?
Can they make a nice pair with each other to bring out a better film?
What are the outcomes of following combinations:
(1) Intelligent Director + Intelligent Editor
(2) Intelligent Director + Ok type Editor who is mostly yes man of director
(3) Ok type director + Intelligent editor who can reshape the film based on the footage shot by Director
(4) An Intelligent director who knows editing also but prefers using an editor because then he can have different outlook about shot material and can decide which version is better.
(5) Any other possible case!
Which kind of editors are liked by Directors? Instruction followers or opionated or someone having both the qualities?
* * * *
I may be completely wrong in my observation of the above mentioned films and scenes taken from those films. Its just a trial to have a discussion about this topic of team of Director and Editor and examples are just to quote something so that discussion can take a start.
So I say apologies in advance to all the concerned filmmakers and to the soul of one of the greatest film makers of the world, Mr Satyajit Ray.
Tags: Bengali, Direction, Editing
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
As usual RK bhai… what a POST!!!
Just a quick question – isn’t editing supposed to be after the shooting schedule is done. Then if the editor does want to change a particular shot where there is a glitch either in characterization or continuity and if the material is not available, how is he to go about making a scene better. Is this the reason why most of the obvious errors or glitches that we pickup when watching a movie are not resolved?
Also, this has been a question in my mind for a long time? Why shouldn’t there be an editor while the shoot is on. Why can’t the editor have a thinking cap on when the film is actually being made so that he can suggest a few possible variations to a shot so that on the editing table he has a few options?
Any thoughts…
Nice post.
About Eklavya though, the whole pleading scene, I used to think was because AB wanted to take a close look at Jimmy’s shoe to see if marks from the impact when Jimmy kicked out the gun from AB’s hand were present on the shoe.
Scene itself was melodramatic no doubt and one can ask why AB wanted to check the shoe when he was already sure about Jimmy’s role, but the scene is not without some logic.
Frankly hadn’t noticed those glitches you mention about PP and HKA so can’t comment there.
RK,
Editing is not the end but merely a means. In ‘NAMESAKE’ we see a ‘Mithunda’s Bengali’ movie poster in ’70’s Bengal(!). Still it is a watchable movie which rises over its demerit cause the protagonist’s agony and ecstacy touch us successfully. sometimes, you know, as Jean Luc Goddard has put it “IT IS THE GAP THRU WHICH THE ARTS ENTER”.
Regards,
Cubicle Bound Misfit
I don’t have any knowledge about the technical details of film-making; I’m the layman cinema viewer. All this fuss about continuity and ‘paying attention to details’ is over-rated. If paying attention to the little parts means you’re missing the big picture, then it’s taking it too far. I mean who the hell cares if Sanjay Dutt was a self-proclaimed DSP and the rest call him Inspector?? Does that designation have any relevance to the story? Does that designation contribute to the outcome?
For example, the last few days I checked out the trailer of this documentary called the 11th Hour. And the voice in the background says that “it’s not just the 11th hour, it’s 11:59″. Now, technically that is wrong (11th hour = 10:59). I get what he’s trying to convey, so why should that technicality really matter? I mean if you get the big picture, do these little things matter?
I’m guessing editing depends on the people involved. I asked a director at a film festival how he went about his editing. And he told me that basically he wanted to keep a watch on it to make sure his basic idea was preserved (his girlfriend was doing the editing). As far as editors being on set for making sure all shots are taken and that continuity is maintained, I guess it’s the job of the cinematographer and some other personnel. I read some place that usually somebody is assigned the role to take care of continuity glitches; I don’t know if it’s only in Hollywood.
RK,if one has to choose from those five options imo 1&4 are preferable..Editing is where film comes alive..But the sad part of our films in so-called Bollywood is that editors are either cut- and -join yes-men or totally running amuck..Of course any director worth his salt would have his editing fundamentals very strong..otherwise it is a case of stitching a shirt from whole nine yards(thhaan mein se kameez banana)where director has erred on side of excess to save his butt or he does not know but he wants to show he knows..A self-assured and not a megalomaniac director would love to have an editor who is friend,critic and guide.
i don’t know much either… but, indian editors must be damn good since they have a lot to edit – i mean, zillionth of clips shot in different countries or studios, to just make one 5 minute song. the editors must have done it so many times…..
how many clips are needed to make/edit a song?
:-d
Your reading of the Eklavya scene is completely wrong… AB’s pleading to Jimmy was in jest and then his attack with the Parinda backdrop… A scene as masterful as it gets… Editors in our country have very little say. Yes there are directors who do not enter the edit room until the first rough cut is done and then they make their suggestions… but they are few and far in between…
There was an interesting response from Onir here last night that is not showing now. I was trying to reply but the site disappeared for a few hours. Ah well.
I’m at work — my short reply is that editors can advise directors about getting what they need, if they are called in for preproduction planning or are on the shoot. Either that, or it’s great if the director has done some editing him or herself to know about these issues.
Many editors do not come to shoots because then they can view the film afresh, as the audience does. They cannot mentally fill in the blanks by remembering what happened on set.
To me, editing is about joining shots to create meaning, suspense, shorten or lengthen time, surprise, rhythym, poetry, etc. It’s less about cutting things out. In fact, some directors such as Jean-Pierre Jeunet plan so intensively that they don’t cut out any shots. However, there is a cinema-verite style of shooting where you capture a lot and find the story in the editing.
@ RK – You rock.
@ Pratik – I had the same thought as you regarding continuity while reading this post, and I have wondered if there is an Indian equivalent of a continuity person on the sets.
But, one thing that is continuously shocking to me while watching Bollywood films is the crappy editing. Well edited films are so rare that I mention that they were well edited when I write reviews. I find it jarring and shocking the way scenes move from one location to the next, and even if I am falling asleep or daydreaming in a film, I take notice of scene changes because they have no continuity and no flow, one minute you are in one scene and the next you are in another scene and I wish I had better technical words to explain the lack of scene transitions I see so often. How is it that big-budget films have such cheap post-production quality? Yet (or especially since), they are so beautifully shot? And, I still couldn’t venture a guess as to whether this is the director or editor responsible for this…
Yet, most of the smaller films don’t suffer from this…or, as Hoonar pointed out, do the songs…
I recently read an interview with Kevin Smith who pointed out he edits his films every night after shooting, and often invites the cast to participate. Everyone gets a feel for where the film is going, and he can quickly fix anything that needs to be fixed, including being able to tell where he might have gone wrong as a director and fixing that, as well…
Even Ramesh sippy had started editing before the the film sholay was completed…one of the reasons was because the movie was taking way too long than expected to wrap up….
Note: Post is updated with another example of recently released film The Blue Umbrella. Leaving the reservation about mentioning recently released film because now its almost 3-4 weeks of its release.
ONIR’s lost comment -
“RK… I feel there is a lot of your questions at the end have no specific answers, really depends from person to person. an intelligent editor and an intelligent dir might have zero chemistry and believe in different film language and the outcome become disastrous. Similarly an intelligent dir with a cutter might be able to extract great work if he knows what he wants. The other way round is a lil improbable because most like an ok type dir will only provide ok type material and making a masterpiece of it is anybodies guess.
I had to edit my first film because of low budget. But I had also trained as an editor. While working with other directors I always wanted to be able to bring in something more to the film from my perspective and mostly if there is mutual respect it works though ultimately it is the director’s baby.
Also editors are very often involved right from script stage and also come to the shoot. I used to do that as an editor and most directors I worked with would take additional shots if asked. I think if you can prove why you think something might make the scene work well most directors would accept it because at the end of the day the film is what matters.
As for me now that I can afford I like to work with an editor whom I trust. I like to stay away from the edit till first cut so I can see a different way of looking at my material rather than what I have already conceived. Sometimes it is nice to see an alternative and then decide what to go for.
Ultimately I do not like the tag [A FILM by "X..."]Or [A "Tom....." FILM]. It kind of negates all the work that so many other creative heads have brought to the film. It is not a one man show.”
Onir,if chemistry is not the issue then pure strenghts of a good director and good editor can be definitely good for the film..What you say? And yes i endorse your views to the tee that it can’t be one man taking all the credit..Its a Team..And God knows when this perspective becomes a norm and not an exception!
Onir:as per my view, director is captain of the ship. so if the film fails, afterwards effect would be more on director and he may suffer.
editor, cinematographer, writer etc. would suffer little due to the failure of the film.
An army is rocognised by his commander. so as per my view it is valid to write “A X FILM” if director wants.
Ravaptor, dazedandconfused ,Cubicle Bound Misfit, Pratik, krysh , Honhaar Goonda , Pratim D. Gupta :
Sorry Guys, my responses to your respective comments have been lost in shifting process of PFC site. Hope you had read those, if not then my apologies.
I will try later to write again. but for now we can start with new comments:)
t,
given record of hindi films, we can assume that majority of films suffer because of this continuity factor. Directors may be less to blame as not everybody has a powerful say. If its not in fashion there and if they demand a continuity person’s involvement during whole process of film making then powerful producers may just discard the idea saying its waste of money. Then in such uncertain atmosphere, clashes of responsibilities.
Unless scene is very professional or Director has his own close person where egos dont matter, its possible to have a person responsible for
@Onir, Thanks for your valuable comment which sheds too much light on the subject.
This is true that an intelligent and yet flexible and relaxed and confident director will do good towards his film and such directors have been doing good and due to them only we have been getting many good films.
In continuation with the factor that sometimes character and a particular scene does not fall in the synchronisation with the whole concept of a charcater:
For example, A Beautiful Mind. There is a scene, where Russel Crow, removes his shirt in his chamber at University and goes to take class wearing only vest. Now he is playing a brilliant mathematician who has extraordinary capabilities in his subject and who has extraordinary involvement in his subject and he is engaged in the research of new theorems round the clock.
Russel Crow is having so muscular body and his biceps and triceps are so visible in that scene that they dont gell with the charcater he is playing. As one cant get that meritorious position in mathematics or any other subject without doing atleast 15-18 hours work per day same way those kind of muscles you cant get without going gym religiously and do exercise for hours. Director could have shown him taking class in shirt also and then this oddity factor was not coming in to the existence.
Who do you think, should have paid attention to edit this scene, as director committed this mistake while canning the shot, but was it possible for editor to advise him to either cut this scene or go for reshooting? They had huge budget so money was not a problem for them!
Evelyn: Editors, Perhaps, can do magic inside their technical room as they have to mix scenes, and have to fill sound at right places. I recall Hrishikesh Mujherjee’s saying, quoted somewhere, that he thought film can be given different shape at editing table. and every editor has to search his own way of doing it. In Indian films, where songs are also part of films and characters have to lip sync those songs because some play back singer has already sung those songs. Editors have to use scenes in such a way that actors lips say exact words as dubing is done later.
I dont know how true is this anecdote but its said that Hrishikesh Mukherjee had edited his famous Film Anand’s climax in very technical manner. means he had less canned scenes but he made it possible by available material only and when Rajesh Khanna’s character dies and Amitabh Bachchan had to weep, then Hrishikesh Mukherjee had blended Amitabh’s shots where he was actually laughing and he made it bit longer scene, so weeping and crying both were converted in to long crying scene because its only difference of voice in laugjing and crying as faces are distorted in both the cases.
an example of power of editing.
Om: Sholay’s editor was not somebody else? Ramesh Sippy was only the director.
If not editing but in todays digital age, directors watch whole days shot material in the evening. Its way more easy these days and films shd have less continuity and snychronisation lackings but its happening more. ;)
Is it due to because sometimes very new person is given full responsibility of editing e.g, when a group of friends make a film then its all about frienship! In earlier times, mostly very experienced people used to do editing, composing the music etc. New people used to do apprentice under them for few films.
Now a fresh graduate from some film school can get a full project because sometimes degrees matter more than the experience.
There will be some very good editors alive in Bombay who are out of work because now Directors who used to take their services in their films are either retired or out of work?
But coming back to real topic. Lackings in works of new people are genuine but when experienced people take things lightly in their films then its a pinching thing.
@RK… well I do not know if it was a mistake he overlooked. maybe they thought that even if the scene had a “flaw” it was more important for the film to have the sequence as there could many other logistics factor ofr a re shott. moreover i am not sure that we can generalise about mathematics and muscles. my brother is one one the leading scientists of the country, been awarded the presidents award…. but plays football regularly and has mastered the guitar.
it slike some people need ten takes to give a good shot and some do it in one.
@krysh. I agree that a good dir and editor can bring in their strengths together. because to be a good dir …. one has to learn to recognise good suggestions from your team.
shailesh… I know that the dir is the captain of the ship… like the indian cricket team has a captain. But his job is too guide his team, extract the best…. and listens to their suggestions as no one is GOD. When the Indian Team wins or looses, the glory or shame is not only the team captain
Onir: yes sir. i agree on your comment that for certain directors after long years of experience, recognition and style, it is valid to write ” A XXXX FILM”. today we find that a director in his debut film writes above claim- this is surely ridiculous.
@Onir,
Thats right, generalisation cant be done if a mathematician is also a musician. since centuries mathematicians have been well versed in music also.:).
Scientists with good command over some artistic fields are not uncommon.
Coming back to the particular shot. that single scene was like a patch in whole film. He was doing so good in entire film.
Moreover Russel Crow was playing a real life character- Prof. John Forbes Nash, whose physique is known.
Ben Kingsley had lost all his westernly toned body’s firm structure to play Gandhi, who had a frail figure, hence Ben K, lost around 30 kg of wt.
Or if Roshan Seth fits very well in Nehru ji’s role because of face resemblence but out of modern fashion develops 6 packs abs and remove shirt Ala Salman Khan or John Abraham in a scene in Nainital jail where Nehru ji is busy in gardening?
:-?
would it be in mood of the film?:d
@Onir,
Thats so true about experienced Directors whose work has earned them a place in cinema and films are seen because of their name.:)
But once in a while, a very confident director who knows he has put all his honest energy and its his trademark work, he also can use such tag lines. If he truely believes that he will be living up to his own high expectations from him.
in other cases:
Would we mind if a artist of MF Hussain’s stature
enters in to film making and his films has this tag line “A MF Hussain film”. He might not have exp. in film making before but one thing is sure that his film will be uniquely in his style.
or though its odd because former President dont see films but if somehow he makes a film, then it will be a unique effort.
Or
I am just curious, if a popular young person, who is famous in other fields but has some command in arts also makes a film. say Varun Gandhi, who is from political family, his reputation is because of this fact but he writes poetry and if he makes a film then would we mind if it has tag line
“A Varun Gandhi film”. :d
but this topic has some concern.
sometimes we see because of Producer’s powerful status in hindi cinema his name is awarded with this tag line. Is it all about who is more powerful? ;)
RK, sometimes editors and directors use the art of distraction to hide small continuity errors in order to get across a larger point.
I didn’t notice Russell Crowe’s buff bod in that scene, and I’ve met the real professor here. But this is a work of fiction, not a documentary. The point here is to tell a good story, not to be ultra-realistic. In fact, the portrayals of schizophrenia are not realistic in that people with this illness do not see visuals but do hear voices; however, the visuals helped us “get” what the professor must have been going through. This is indeed great editing and direction.
Whether a film has noticeable editing is up to the director and editor’s choice. When the viewer is made aware of the conceits of a film, they are made complicit in the story telling. However, they will then be less caught up in the fantasy world that is being constructed for them. A great editor may be able to hide all of his “tricks” and just provide an entertaining experience. That’s a choice, too.
@RK,so far celebrities from other fields are concerned their foray into filmmaking may go with a tagline A Film ByXXX..as a reputation preceds them (having achieved excellence in their own field)
But name one director who does not truly believe that he is living upto his own high expectations..The scenario is littered with directors who truly believe that they have a masterpiece in their mediocrity..It requires great courage,self-esteem and assesment to take an objective and comprehensive view and take the team along by simply stating directed by…
There typically is a shooting script with the director’s markup. Onir, doesn’t the editor typically start shaping the movie with that, rather than discovering the story all over from scratch?
I had read a piece by editor Ralph Rosenblum many years ago in which he took credit for saving “Annie Hall.” Apparently, there were multiple story lines, but he felt the plotline involving Annie and Woody was the only gem worth keeping. Now, Woody Allen didn’t have to let Rosenblum rearrange his movie. So, should Woody be embarrassed that he started out with such a mess or proud that he had hired and trusted such a talented editor?
Good post RK bhai
Ravptor/Pratik: There is usually a script-supervisor or continuity person on set to look after continuity errors and ensure overall consistency in the shooting (like ensure the cast is wearing the correct clothing if it
@Evelyn Tu I think it varies from project to project. Of course ideally an editor is involved right from the script stage, where even his inputs in terms of structure are considered. What I was trying to say is that when a director shoots a sequence he edits it in his head a certain way. The written word and the rushes are two different things and sometimes despite having known the written script… the footage might bring in something new to the thought process of an editor. Where a lot might be reshuffled or deleted because on film it did not work. I think there is no hard and fast rule of how one works together and what are the job definitions.
@Onir, my directing professor says a great actor like Meryl Streep will deliver a slightly different performance with every take to give the editor and director more to work with. Have you found this to be the case in your experiences?
The reason I asked this question above is that having smart editors, directors and actors who all give to the project selflessly will make a better movie together as compared to each of them behaving as lone wolves.
Jack Nicholson is one actor who understands the editing process and can explain the importance of how his actions help make a scene work, while other actors may only be interested in being made to look good.
@Evelyn. yes I totally agree with your professor. i remember as an editor my asst would get suprised why i wanted to see takes that were marked NG by the directors. very often than not one got expressions in these shots which could be used as reaction while intercutting. and yes sometimes with each take the emotional quotient differs and it is very important to be able to use it intelligently. can convey different things.
Krysh:
There can be some/many directors who know very well that they are not making any thing great but simply making it because it may earn money for them to run the life. If not in starting but at some intermediate stage they may start feeling that its very mediocre film they are going to make but show has to go on.
This tag line (a “X” Film or a film by “X”) in Hindi cinema is totally borrowed idea and can be said as copied from Hollywood and European cinema.
It will be interesting to know who started using such tag line first. It shd not be older than early 90s.
Now because of DVD’s market this tag line is becoming more popular. One has to look at DVD which famous name (Studios names dont matter, nobody bothers whether its a warner Brothers film or a Universal pictures). Through DVD Directors ahve got more name than their producers and hence this tag “A film by so and so” helps the buyer.
But in cinema hall, its different thing altogether. Nobody goes there in cinema hall (other than travellers who sometime enter in any film) without having any information abt the film.
It can be interesting to know what difference does poster make if Its mentioned there
(1) Directed by “X” (older ways of posters)
(2) A “X” film, [though they again repeat who is director]
More famous names, better is the scene.
An audience may not go to watch a film, just becasue of Director’s name as in tag line, but if Director’s film has famous name sof actors in his films then it may generate more curiosity.
Its all about who is more famous in the market and who has earned more credibility in the market.
so things are market related.
Though in reality, in case of capable directors two different directors are able to take different kind of work from a single actor in their respective films and hence ideally its Director’s film.
Tag lines help while we have no clue about the film and we have to select then as Amitabh Bachchan used to say in BPL’s ad ” Nam hee kafee hai (Name is enough)” helps.
Tony: in case of Eklavya, if we find previous part of mentioned scene (Eklavyas touching the shoes of Jimmy) as faulty then its mistake on the part of writer (who perhaps is Vidhu Chopra himself). But its true that its about different understanding as its clear that many dont find this thing alien to a character like Eklavya so for them scene and thus the team of writer, director and editor did good work.
—
Thats good to know that you have practical exp. of editing also:)
Evelyn,
Not ultra realistic but atleast things should be somewhere 25% close to the real things on which films are made. That was only about that single scene and its very much possible that different audience will see same scene differently.
But on an average, somewhere things shd fall in synchronisation with the character else false things give false illusion to people. These visuals, glamour field, stars (In India film stars, in Europe pop stars) affect the pysche of the people. and when a woman is shown to have 26-28 waistline just after a day of delivering a baby and these patterns are repeated again and again in films then can we go on saying these things dont affect the psyche of the audiences? What was the need for Spain to object on female model’s extra thin body structure?
In case of Indian films, when a guy with a height of %ft and 2-4 Inches are shown as commisioned officer or Junior Commisioned officer and they are not part of Gorkha Regiment or Garhwal or Kumaon regiment then it increases frustartion of guys having rejected by army becasue they dont fit in their criteria set for height of the officers.
Re: A Beautiful Mind, an Oscar winner film, point was for the sake of this general scenario. A character like Russel Crow’s, who is always busy in his mathematics and never follows any sport let alone any strict discipline of doing exercise, its very unlikely to get those muscles. Muscles cant come from air, they are not god gifted things. One has to obtain them by hard work.
Point is not about ultra realistic approach but whether some scenes follow the synchronisation with the whole story and a character’s possible traits?
Films are ultimately fictions or based on fictions unless they are based on autobiographies where some similarities with the real life character/s and their lives are needed.
Do we care when we see Harrison Ford walking bare chested in battle field in Apocalypse Now. Its very fictious character and we take it as traits of a cynical army officer (filmi).
Some where something becomes objectionable for everybody. But surely this also differs from person to person. As you may find some other character in any other film going out of order required for that particular subject and other audience may find it OK.
and for self education about cinema for us viewers we have to seek such scenes where we are stopped while going with the flow of the film.
There is a difference between objections
(1) why that character behaved like that, – as some audience had objected in case of Shilpa Shetty’s acceptance of KK in the end in the film , Life in a Metro. Thats prerogative of a story teller (writer and director) to depict the story in such a way.
(2) objections cited above in the post.
Evelyn, Onir:
got this important thing in discussion between you two. Evelyn in your comment number 33 you have mentioned abt Jack Nicholson’s understanding abt editing.
Now what an actor can do while givings shots during shooting so that work of editors become easy?
Perhaps you will not be familiar with a Yash Chopra Film, Mashaal, Onir might have seen the film.
There is a scene in which Dilip saab is crying and shouting to stop any one passing through him and his dying wife Waheeda Rehman.
I recall Javed Saab mentioing about this scene.
Due to some problem. as shooting was done in night at Bombay’s street, Yash Chopra had to re shoot the scene repeatedily for 3-4 days and Javed Saab mentioned that Dilip Saaab was so consistent in his performance and rather he brought something new and improved in every re take and it was a problem for editor and director to select which version of the scene to be kept in the film.
and perhaps they used mixed small takes to make it a long scene. At some points scene has a mixing problem at the point where Dilip Saab is shown to run towards Waheeda Rehman from the middle of the road. You get to know the mixing of two different shots. Dilip Saab’s wonderfully performed scene had not got equally good editing.
Hi, RK, A Beautiful Mind is based on a non-fiction book about a real professor who is still around. I understand your point — Russell Crowe’s physique was inconsistent with the rules of reality that filmmaker Ron Howard established for his fictional world, and that made you doubt the integrity of the rest of the film.
A Beautiful Mind blends countless aspects of a real life story with fiction, so I’m sure you could point out many more continuity problems. For me, a bigger question would be whether a serious mental illness has been shown in a way that might increase awareness and decrease fear, while being entertaining enough for people to pay to see it. If the answer is yes, then a larger purpose has been served.
In making short documentaries, I’ve found that literal, linear reality is extraordinarily difficult to capture. Anyway, we’ve all seen experimental, unedited docs that aren’t that interesting to watch. Instead, you can represent the truth (real or imagined) as well as possible given the existing footage and aided by editing skills.
As far as actors improvising from take to take, I’m sure Onir or other directors can speak about it more eloquently. What I can say from even a little experience is that if your star is holding something in his right hand in one take and holding it in his left hand in the next take, you’ll have a problem using both shots in a sequence. I imagine that in the example you mentioned above, Dilip Kumar may have appeared slightly different (i.e. hair or clothing) or held things in inconsistent ways or the lighting quality changed.
So many things can go wrong, it’s mind-boggling!!!! But if the character only changes his/her delivery and not the blocking, that is very useful.
Evelyn: There is some gap!
(1)That single scene of “A Beautiful Mind” does not make me doubt the integrity of rest of the film. I wrote that single scene is like a patch in the otherwise so beautiful film. In that scene Director became careless and took for granted his audiences. If Russel Crow was coming to Class with his shirt on, then was this improvement affecting the film in a negative manner as the scene in present form does? a Muscular body neededto play Gladiator is very unlikely to play a highly devoted scientist because he cant take out time to develop those kinda muscles.
(2)Dilip saab’s inputs to bring quality in the scene were of high class. Problem was in the mixing of two different scenes. It was not performance problem but technical problem.
—–
With your example of object in left or right hand, Is not it Directors job to keep observation on these inconsistencies.
In mediocre formula films it often happens actors start from one place in a car and when they reach at other place either car is changed or clothes of actors, though according to film, they are supposed to reach there without any halt.
—
Re: your point regarding awareness factor, It occurs to my mind that most often awareness factor is secondary in films and thats a by product. Director may feel stimulated by a story and he wants to make a film on that subject and if that subject is associated with a cause then it is mostly secondary reason. Though exceptions can be there and many have made films after getting inspired by some thing. But still a charming story should attract them else it will become a documentary.
We have Onir on PFC and he has made My Brother Nikhil which touched the subject of AIDS and gay relationship. So he can throw more light on this inspiration factor.
Rayman, The Miracle Worker, Whats eating Gilbert Grape, Forest Gump etc in English and Koshish,Sparsh etc provokes me to have above said hypothesis. Somewhere a charming story is needed even if director wishes to be connected with a cause.
Thats why we find human and sometimes love stories intermingled with the main plot of the film.
Best example we can find in the Novel “Cancer Ward” – written by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and published in 1960s.
It covers lives of patients suffering from the most dangerous disease of last century and its not those fighting with disease stories of Readers Digest. Its much much more but along with its mamooth sized plot it carries subject of cancer ahead and make readers aware about the disease and its effects and its cure and its side effects in a readable manner.
RK, yes, the story needs to charm, of course.
In my understanding of filmmaking, the plot is a crucial part the message. In a great movie, all of the elements work together in support of the message. This includes plot, actors, lens choices, lighting, colors, camera movement, set design, location, pace of the editing, ambient sound, music, sound effects, etc. etc. The realistic details that flesh out the characters’ lives, when they ring true to us, tend to be the magic point where the film reaches brilliance.
More later…
@Pratik (Cmt4)
Vidhu Vinod Chopra has made many films and is an expreinced director. After getting praises for 1942-A love Story and while he was going to release his next film Kareeb, he had cliamed,
“he knows he is the best in Hindi Cinema”.
He has claimed it took him 5 years to write story and script of Eklavya! 5 years for this kind of film!
and certainly he has not made a comedy film where there can be joke regarding designation. There has to be some continuity and synchronisation in the plots of films of such experienced and acclaimed film maker.
For once one can digest that Jimmy and Jacky calls Sanjay Dutt Inspector to ridicule him but Saif? His character will do that?
Such slips simply suggest that Director did not keep full control over the subject he was covering in the film. Film’s script lacks at several places. These were to quote just need of proper editing and shortening of the scene. Scenes should justify the character’s build up and they should not be elongated to increase the length of the film. When same message can be shown in 80 minutes why to make a 90 minutes film?:-w
@RK
It’s all the same yaar. Inspector ho yaa DSP, ki farak painda ?? Just because Saif is educated et al, he’s going to address all the administrative authorities in the appropriate manner? In a movie like Eklavya, it has no significance. Agreed there might’ve been problems with the script etc, but such an incontinuity error didn’t do anything to make it any worse or better.
RK, are you trying to definitively determine who is responsible for continuity errors?
Yes, the director’s job is to be the first and the last word (with some concessions to producers).What I know from documentaries and reading is that the editor’s job is to fulfill the director’s vision, although they often are empowered to experiment and make boldly different suggestions. Not every director has the ability to be an effective one-man show.
Editors have a lot of tricks up their sleeves, but sometimes the footage just isn’t there. When editing any kind of movies, you’ll probably need the right shots in order to be able to cut on action or to join scenes that match graphically. You also need appropriate cutaways and reaction shots in order to hide edits in dialogue. The director should plan ahead for these shots, if he either has the knowledge already or asks for advice from an editor.
Also, an idea that sounds good in the script may slow things down or not work once you see it on film. I think this is where some makeshift editing occurs. Or perhaps your animatronic shark just looks completely unscary and unbelievable, as happened with “Jaws.” With a big budget and a generous deadline, you can reshoot or add pickup shots, but obviously even that adds risks, as in your Dilip Kumar story.
Having worked in a few kinds of media, it is safe to say that artistic ambitions almost always conflict with the triple contraints of time, money and manpower. At some point, you have to make it work and finish the project with the resources you have. While constraints can help you focus your work, they also mean that some details may have gotten jumbled in the shuffle.
@Pratik,
You are right, even if this kind of small mistakes were not there, film was not going to be a great film, as to make a great film script has to be intact, characters should follow a defined pattern and there should be a good ratio which character needs how much footage to carry the story ahead in an attractive manner.:)
I repeat one thing though, Post was not produced to declare a film good or bad, but to discuss where scenes go awry because of some lacking on the part of director and/or editors.
Once released we the audience cant improve the mentioned films but we can dissect them to gain some cinematic understanding. :-?
@Evelyn:
Thanks for long and detailed explanation. With Onir’s input and discusssion thereafter we can try to summarise that situation is best when Editor enjoys the confidence of director and both are free and able to bring best cinematic version of the visual story captured through the camera.
If editor is working only as technical assistent or employee then there are chances that there could be some lackings in the last product.
and then mere friendship and relationship cant bring out a nice product. Director has to be tough also to extract best thing out of the editorial room.
Sometimes footage may not be available but a smart and capable editor may fulfil the demand of director just by digging the available shot material. Like we discussed Hrishikesh Mukherjee’s example regarding Anand film. He used Amitabh’s laughing shot also to elongate crying scene in the climax.
RK, sorry I am late to this thread. Thanks for starting this interesting discussion – I will leave out what t! calls just poorly edited movies (thankfully I’ve been spared watching most of them), but I wanted to address a couple of things and pick up on a couple of your examples…
When I was editing my short, I stressed about continuity. I stressed about the fact that in one scene, the floor markers for the dolly could be seen. In another, a little wire was hanging out in the corner of the floor. My editing professor told me “If your audience notices that, you’ve lost them already”. Meaning that those small glitches do happen, but if your audience is actually focused on that, they are not focused on the story. You’ve lost the much bigger battle as a director/editor.
That does not mean that you should be cavalier as a director and let mistakes happen. But however hard you try, there will be errors. And yes a continuity person can help, but little errors will creep through.
The other thing you should assume is that any editor worth her salt (and the director) have gone through every single frame of the movie. Frame by frame. When you put in a cut, you actually expand out the timeline (if online editing) to cut a single frame here or there to make the transition smoother. Then you run it. Maybe just 5 seconds, maybe just a second. You cut another frame, run it again. I bet you anything that Ray knew the woman’s lips where moving and he let that be. Why? I don’t know, but he knew it was there for sure, even though that was before online editing. That is not an error a director or editor “let’s slide”.
And I can’t speak for Anurag and Aarti Bajaj, but I think that is the effect that they wanted. No scene, no cut, no image is put there without a purpose. Now, the fact that you think it is poor editing is a different issue. It means that they made a decision and you as an audience member didn’t like it. I actualy liked it. I liked that it was non-linear. So, they won one and lost one.
I once spend an entire day getting the sound of an “oh” to match up with the image b/c of the footage I had. I guess my overall point is that editors sweat the really small stuff. And they sweat the really big stuff. So do directors. So, the “mistakes” you see in films are either a) actual decisions made by the editor/director or b)something they know, something that burns them every time they watch the film, but that they had to compromise over
With my limited experience, that’s my take.
@Sripriya,
Thanks for detailed comment and writing your own experience with editing.
I cant put powerful denial to what your Editing Professor said, but somewhere I have bit different view.
There are two ways to watch the film to know it.
[Though it depends on the film also whether its presentation is able to carry you completely with its flow or not]
[1] One watches it with critic’s eye only and then cant enjoy the film and will leave the so many things present in the film.
[2] One is so engrossed in the film that flowing with the flow of the film and then like one is flowing with the flow of the river, everything will be before him, when and where waves carry him upside and where he goes down and where something has struck his body like a piece of wood etc etc. I dont think with superficial watching detailed things about the film can be seen.
Once one is completely engrossed in the watching of the film then audience may look the film somewhat closely to the extent as seen by director.
and then Directors and Editors are human and errors are bound to happen. Trial is not to point out errors to bring down the films.
Why it cant happen that as Ray was making his very first film and he and his editor could just slip the mentioned scene. There can be other weaknesses in the same film which are not due to direction and editing but they may be due to lack of means. This is also true that inspite of checking own paper for several times, one finds mistakes when final print is in his hands and he cant check now. Eyes become so used to of reading same text again and again that they somehow become blind towards the small mistakes but a new proof reader will point out these mistakes in very first reading or a simple reader while reading the text will get to know it.
Re: films editing seems to be one of the most important factor.If we watch worlds great films which have influenced audience all over the world then they dont suffer from many weaknesses other than inevitiable or unavoidable and that too small ones.
Once you will watch The Blue Umbrella then will get to know that these weakneses could easily be avoided.
I find it amusing when you write re BF,”No scene, no cut, no image is put there without a purpose”
Though I dont get it completely. You must be quoting it on basis of your discussion with Director of the film Anurag Kashyap. But I am guessing that you mean to say that mentioned scene is kept in the film in such a way only because Director and editor wanted the scene in this particular way only? I dont have DVD of the film, WB and OZ have so they may say in detail.
This is true that films find their own audience and films lose some depending on grasping power of the film and depending on experience of watcher also only few pieces of art can affect people Universally.
While responding to you after reading your lines, I get this feeling that habitual eyes make these small mistakes hence a detached editor is a must or one detached person who is allowed to see the prefinal version and whose suggestions are taken in the interest of the film and not as something which hurt the sentiments of the directors as they may be deeply attached with their creations as all creative people are. But films are majorly team work though last say comes from directors side as he is the Commander In Chief
Hi, RK, I agree 100% with what Shripriya wrote, and it’s nice to know others are just as obsessive about editing.
Basically, to paraphrase Quentin Tarantino in a doc about editing, the difference one frame (1/25 to 1/30 of a second) can make is the difference between utter crap and total orgasmic perfection. So editors agonize over every join between frames to be able to hit that perfect spot where the cut is nearly “invisible” to the viewer unless we want them to be jarred into awareness.
So, glitches may not be what an editor intends, but he or she surely notices them. It’s good feedback to know when an editor has guessed wrong about its noticeability, but at that point there may not have been a better choice.
Also, you may be on the lookout for problems; when I watch a movie, I look for impressive camera movements, lens choices, clever edits, etc. Most people are looking to see whether the plot touches their hearts.
Evelyn: I dont see film for any particular reason than to watch a film, with no particular method than to watch it without any distraction from any side. I cant see film in a divided way that let me see camera work, content etc. for me (others can have a different way to watch a film, like you have) either film is seen in totallity or its useless to see a film as then its an activity to pass the time only. These things which I am quoting come again on surface after film is finished.
This is true with anything. When we attend a seminar or lecture by someone, some people start noting down questions and in this process they miss some part of the lecture. Some may listen full lecture and then on the basis of memory they can ask questions related to first portion of the lecture which may be said by lecturer 1 hour before.
In first viewing its not possible to watch film for some particular department. This may happen in second or third watching when intention is to study some particular deptt of the film. Its not on part of watcher, there shd be something in the film which attracts more attention of watcher so if camera work is amazing then its bound to attract the audience’s, special attention, audience does not have to watch the film for camera work only as then he will miss many other good things of the film. Yes a cameraman or who is interested particularly in camera work he can watch a film for that area only. A technical person may watch film for technical reasons.:)
Have you also fellen in the category where we start questioning why some shortcomings are quoted in some films?:-?
And these examples of speed of frame etc are very technical things. Ordinary audience cant catch these glitches. we are discussing ordinary mistakes which are overlooked knowingly or unknowingly. ordinary things related with scenes, content, characterization etc which an ordinary audience also can see.
RK, that example of the attention paid to a single frame at a portion of asecond is to illustrate that editors likely are well aware of every clunker in a movie, but there may be no better options and are certainly secondary to getting the bigger points across.
It’s good that you are aware of editing and continuity issues. I was just reading an article about how film literacy is the language of the future for everyone, not just filmmakers — even gangs are sending out threats to keep its members in line on video. If you know how films are constructed, you will also know that truth can either be well represented or distorted by movies, too.
Some things jump out at you but may not be so obvious to others. When I see movies, I want to let the total experience wash over me, like you do. However, there are moments when something so brilliant happens that I have to see that again to figure out how it was done.
A recent example was a shot in a song from Shree 420, Pyar Hua Iqrar Hua, which a friend was showing me. Nargis and Raj Kapoor are walking away from the camera down a dark, misty street. In a split-second, they are walking toward the camera on the same street, but the transition is almost invisible. When we replayed it, we could see there was a perfect graphic match where the actors were in the exact same spot and the setting around them is just about the same shape. Others may not see graphic matches, but they may find this song to be very elegant, and that’s good enough.
Hi Evelyn,
Thanks for interesting comment.
Radhu Karmakar, the cinematographer, and G.G.Mayekar the editor, were associated with most of the Raj Kapoor’s films and Raj Kapoor himself had deep knowledge of almost every department of film making so high quality work is expected from such team.
This is true that a technical person may try to look closely the most appealing scenes also.
This is also true that sometimes Filmmakers and technical team do mistakes which could have been avoided. Like in Sangam Raj Kapoor shows that he is flying a plane and Vaijayanti Mala from the ground is able to talk to him and later in another scene he again shouts from inside the fighter jet already moving on the run way and its very unlikely that voice will come out of the cockpit. But there is still some sense attached because its not shown that Vaijayanti Mala listens what he says from the air or from inside the fighter plane.
But years later Yash Chopra immitated same scene in Silsila and did bigger mistake because here Shashi Kapoor is screaming from a fighter plane flying so high in sky and Jaya Bachchan actually listens and responds to his sayings from earth.
Unless something is very obvious and transition happens smoothly nobody objects. Hardly anyone will object why first camera is placed before the actors and they are walking towards camera and in exactly next scene which is in continuation of previous scene they are shown going away from the camera or vice versa may happen, as multiple cameras, shooting from different angles of a long shot etc are quite acceptable across the world and its seen in films of every country whereever films are made. Even the films which are considered as few best films as far as camera works are considered these multiple angle factors are present there. These things dont make us halt at scenes as they dont affect the flow of story in negative manner.
and this is true that something strike to someone and other things are more visible to others all depend on exposure of individual.
All over the world, good teachers in any field dont only teach good things only but bad and weaknesses in the past products and processes also so that development may take straight and fast track.
In art and films also if we watch all films of a single director we may find different good and bad things in his different works and these good and bad things in their works are there for others to study. Thats their contribution towards the learners.
Students of cinema have to compare Eyes Wide Shut and Bitter Moon and where which director was better as subject covers almost similar field and two great directors take have to be understood to cinema better.