Help me identify good editing

[Rev. Powell]

Here's a strange request.  This year I will be voting in the Online Film Critics Society year end poll.  Among the normal categories that I can handle---best picture, actor, actress, director, etc.---is one I know nothing about: Best Editing.  I'm not allowed to pass on any category, I have to vote for something.

I have no technical training in this field and I honestly have no idea how to identify "good" vs. "bad" (or "average") editing.  If there's an impressive fast-cut montage that really stands out, I can see that (like the opening of PERFORMANCE or the whole of THE HEART OF THE WORLD).  But everyday editing is invisible to me.  In fact, I would consider the way most films transition from shot to shot as rather mundane stuff that (to me) should just be considered part of directing (since most directors personally oversee the editing, and editors seem to be mere technicians for the most part).

So, can anyone with some technical knowledge explain to me what I should try to pay attention to when looking for examples of outstanding editing?  Can anyone point to any exceptionally edited scenes or movies from 2011?  If I had to vote right now I'd cast my vote for THE TREE OF LIFE because I like the way the images flow---but that seems to me more a question of how the director selected and arranged the images than the technical craft of "editing."  I'd be thankful if anyone could point me in the right direction here.

[dean]

Do you have a short list of movies?  I haven't really put much thought into it for this year regarding the editing specifically and probably haven't seen them all but I could point you in the right direction if you give me some from the list [film student here who wants to specialise in editing]  Sadly I haven't seen Tree of Life but I hear good things.

Good editing is usually invisible which does make it a bit harder, but generally I would try to see how they composed the cuts and how the film itself was put together, kind of like a puzzle that has all these pieces, the editor has to put it all together to make some kind of sense.  Now add the fact that nobody knows what the puzzle should look like so the editor can choose where it all goes.

Bad metaphor but you'll get the idea, hopefully.  I tend to think of it in terms of pacing: making a connection between the shots in order to give the film an emotion that you maybe can't quite put your finger on.  I find that whilst there may be a lot going on technically, judging good editing is more organic: making a film connect.  One of my tutors in previous years described it to me as he'll get a shot, make sure the next shot flows from that, and the third shot connects back to the first shot. 

Look at some of the previous winners in the category: The Social Network, The Hurt Locker, The Departed, Slumdog Millionaire.  All had that connection and flow that you only get through editing.  The decision on when to cut, and what to cut to are some of the markers of a good edit.  I suppose as a pointer, The Social Network was edited well in that it made scenes of technical babble sound interesting.  The use of music in certain scenes of Slumdog really set the tone for the film as another example.


PM me if you need more pointers as I'm being relatively brief here and I hope it makes sense.   

[Trevor]

Good editing is usually invisible

I agree with Dean: good editing is where you don't see the cuts: bad editing is where you do. 

[The Burgomaster]

Good film editing is the opposite of this.  Note, among other things, the many awkward reaction shots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXWE7krwJZk
	Small | Large

[Rev. Powell]

Do you have a short list of movies?  I haven't really put much thought into it for this year regarding the editing specifically and probably haven't seen them all but I could point you in the right direction if you give me some from the list [film student here who wants to specialise in editing]  Sadly I haven't seen Tree of Life but I hear good things.

Not yet, I suppose I can post the nominees when they are announced in Dec.  But I don't plan to go out and re-watch every nominee just to look at the editing, so I wanted to get some pointers on what to be on the lookout for in the meantime.

Good editing is usually invisible which does make it a bit harder, but generally I would try to see how they composed the cuts and how the film itself was put together, kind of like a puzzle that has all these pieces, the editor has to put it all together to make some kind of sense.  Now add the fact that nobody knows what the puzzle should look like so the editor can choose where it all goes.

Yep, good editing is invisible: that's why I never see it!  It probably contributes to my sense of how good a movie is on a subconscious level.  Certain movies flow well and just have a more professional feel to them---they seem well made, whether you like the subject matter or not.  I imagine a good part of that professional feel comes from editing.

Bad metaphor but you'll get the idea, hopefully.  I tend to think of it in terms of pacing: making a connection between the shots in order to give the film an emotion that you maybe can't quite put your finger on.  I find that whilst there may be a lot going on technically, judging good editing is more organic: making a film connect.  One of my tutors in previous years described it to me as he'll get a shot, make sure the next shot flows from that, and the third shot connects back to the first shot. 

Look at some of the previous winners in the category: The Social Network, The Hurt Locker, The Departed, Slumdog Millionaire.  All had that connection and flow that you only get through editing.  The decision on when to cut, and what to cut to are some of the markers of a good edit.  I suppose as a pointer, The Social Network was edited well in that it made scenes of technical babble sound interesting.  The use of music in certain scenes of Slumdog really set the tone for the film as another example.

I can see how HURT LOCKER won because of the tension created in the battle scenes.  I was thinking that I only notice editing in either action or suspense scenes.  I imagine editing is more important in horror movies to create fear.  In dramas, whether the way you cut back and forth between two people talking is good or bad is hard to judge (for me).  In comedies, I guess it might sometimes have an effect on the way jokes are timed.

PM me if you need more pointers as I'm being relatively brief here and I hope it makes sense.   

Thanks, your thoughts are very helpful and pretty much what I was looking for.  I may bring the subject up again when the nominees are announced.  (I can nominate films too, but I'm going to skip the editing category!)

[Skull]

I'm not sure it's nessary for an award... it seems that most horror films at the Rated R level is "edited" to meet the PG-13 rating and yet still have an impact of adult horror.

[dean]

Its definitely necessary as without editing you wouldn't have a film.

Especially since you'd probably only see barely 1/10 of the footage shot for a film.  Someone's gotta go through it all.

Rev:  Yeah I tend to notice it more in an action or suspense film, which is why they often win, but The Social Network is a perfect example of a well edited 'normal' film, especially when the dialogue just goes on and on, yet I didn't get bored.

Anyways, I can probably give more advice, but I'm pressed for time right now, if you're feeling lazy I can just tell you which one is the winner once they release the short list 

[Jim H]

In fact, I would consider the way most films transition from shot to shot as rather mundane stuff that (to me) should just be considered part of directing (since most directors personally oversee the editing, and editors seem to be mere technicians for the most part).

It really does depend on the editor and director in question, but in many cases the director is relatively hands off for much of the editing time, more like a manager with final approval than an actual editor.  It might be worth noting here the huge amount of coverage and footage typically shot that editors have to figure out how to put together to achieve a desired emotional effect.  The director does not normally have a complete shot list that is put exactly into the editing bed.  If you try to do it this way, it often ends up stilted and you get weird issues.  So the editors are given lots of other stuff to tool around with (it also helps cover up minor continuity errors and such).

It might also be worth noting, you can completely change the tone of a film through editing. 

I will say it's fairly tough to describe the kinds of stuff you can do with editing, but yes, it is generally invisible when done right, and because of that can be tough to judge.  It's also very tough to comment on a films editing if you aren't actively paying attention to it WHILE WATCHING.  I think that's important to note.  Try watching a movie and thinking of where and how shots linger, the way scenes begin and end, the usage of coverage, how sound is used, musical cues, etc.  Think of Christopher Nolan, who ellipses like EVERY SCENE for the entire film, and how that affects pacing.

I'd agree directing is a part of editing.  But so is acting, cinematography, special effects, scoring, and even the writing in many cases.  The shots are planned mostly in advance, and this is certainly an element of editing.  A good example of this are some of the Super 8 film festivals, which usually require a movie to be shot completely in sequence, and you have to turn in the undeveloped negative and it is shown as is.  All the editing is done as part of the shoot.  But, the films still have editing that you can judge accordingly.

As far as a sequence with some really good editing that sticks out...  The train wreck in Super 8 is a big one. 

[Rev. Powell]

In fact, I would consider the way most films transition from shot to shot as rather mundane stuff that (to me) should just be considered part of directing (since most directors personally oversee the editing, and editors seem to be mere technicians for the most part).

It really does depend on the editor and director in question, but in many cases the director is relatively hands off for much of the editing time, more like a manager with final approval than an actual editor.  It might be worth noting here the huge amount of coverage and footage typically shot that editors have to figure out how to put together to achieve a desired emotional effect.  The director does not normally have a complete shot list that is put exactly into the editing bed.  If you try to do it this way, it often ends up stilted and you get weird issues.  So the editors are given lots of other stuff to tool around with (it also helps cover up minor continuity errors and such).

It might also be worth noting, you can completely change the tone of a film through editing. 

I will say it's fairly tough to describe the kinds of stuff you can do with editing, but yes, it is generally invisible when done right, and because of that can be tough to judge.  It's also very tough to comment on a films editing if you aren't actively paying attention to it WHILE WATCHING.  I think that's important to note.  Try watching a movie and thinking of where and how shots linger, the way scenes begin and end, the usage of coverage, how sound is used, musical cues, etc.  Think of Christopher Nolan, who ellipses like EVERY SCENE for the entire film, and how that affects pacing.

I agree that I need to be paying attention to the editing while watching---that's exactly why I asked the question before the nominees were announced.  I'm trying to pay more attention to where scenes cut in and out and how musical cues are used.

I'd agree directing is a part of editing.  But so is acting, cinematography, special effects, scoring, and even the writing in many cases.  The shots are planned mostly in advance, and this is certainly an element of editing.  A good example of this are some of the Super 8 film festivals, which usually require a movie to be shot completely in sequence, and you have to turn in the undeveloped negative and it is shown as is.  All the editing is done as part of the shoot.  But, the films still have editing that you can judge accordingly.

As far as a sequence with some really good editing that sticks out...  The train wreck in Super 8 is a big one. 

Thanks, that's very helpful.  I notice that the editing scene you mention is an action sequence.  Right now SUPER 8 is my early favorite for best editing. 

[dean]

Yeah I'll throw in my hat to Super 8 so far, I forgot that came out this year.  There were some well put together scenes and that train wreck was well done too.  None other are popping into my head right now but that certainly is a good one, albeit well edited in scenes rather than necessarily across the whole piece.

[Jim H]

Thanks, that's very helpful.  I notice that the editing scene you mention is an action sequence.

Yeah, they really are the bravura stuff for editing, as are suspense sequences, etc.  For my money, more "drama" type scenes are usually best with very light editing if your actors can handle it.  Yeah, you have to pick reaction shots, and so forth, and maximize the impact, but if your actors have the chops for it, long single takes are some of the most effective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9S41Kplsbs
	Small | Large

In the 3:35 here, there's just six edits, generally just quick reaction shots though one is used to help cut to a closeup and get a better read on Shaw's features.  There's also subtle but every effective use of sound and music cues. 

But, I think it's obvious even if this had been a single unbroken take with just Shaw's voice it'd have been an amazing scene.

[voltron]

To me, "bad" editing is when shots seem to linger on way too long and you notice this. I think Rock N' Roll Nightmare is a good example of "bad" editing (brilliant movie otherwise). On the other hand, Argento is well known for his well set up shots and interesting editing choices (see the "eye" scene in Deep Red).

[ulthar]

My first thought when reading the OP has been stated...good editing is 'invisible.'

The best I can offer are some movies or sequences within movies where the editing was so spot-on that it captured (or at least seemed to me the viewer) exactly what the director wanted to say/show.

There's a TON more to editing than JUST cutting scenes together...that's the mechanics of it, certainly, but, well, listen to some of John Carpenter's commentaries (he does a lot of his own editing) to get a feel for how hard it can be to capture.

With that, I offer THE THING as an editing masterpiece, and give THE FOG an honorable mention.

I also like the traveling montage scene (as well as the whole movie) in WRISTCUTTERS: A LOVE STORY.  It's short, humorous and tells a LOT more than just "the characters were here, doing this."  This montage actually advances the characterizations, which is pretty incredible if you think about how so many montages fall completely flat.

Finally, EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED has some likewise good editing. *** NEXT SENTENCE MIGHT CONTAIN A SPOILER *** This movie is cool because it starts out as a comedy and shifts, almost suddenly (like a slap) into a real drama...but never even touches "dramedy" territory.  This is certainly a huge overlap between directing the shooting and cutting it together in post, but the effect (for this movie anyway) is phenomenal...my opinion at least.

My vote for BAD editing?

Any time in a movie that a character cannot 'see' something that he/she obviously WOULD be able to see (peripheral vision, for example).  This takes me right out of a movie...completely out.  It's common in horror movies where the director is seeking the cheap scare; trained editors 'should' possibly say, "uh, no, that's crap," and cut it.

If I were in your shoes of having to 'judge' the cutting together of a film, I would start with one criterion: does the editing continually remind me that I am watching a movie?  If it fails there, it fails.  It it passes, then I would dig deeper into such aspects of "does the editing itself advance plot, character development, or thematic elements?"

The editing SHOULD be invisible (again, my opinion), which leaves out most modern MTV style stuff, but should also be part of the artistic whole.  I hope that makes sense.

And no mistake, editing is perhaps one of the hardest aspects of film making.  Composition, lighting, acting, stunts and effects can be learned; the combination of directing and editing seem much more organic and intuitive. 

[ulthar]

Sorry for the double post...an addendum:

I also think the editing in HITCHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY was very well done...there are some shots that 'linger' a beat or two longer than you expect, and these add a TON of depth to the overall story.  One example I am thinking of is a shot on Bill Nighy that doesn't let go as quick as one would expect, and it allows his sadness to really seep into the viewer.

Another example from the same movie, this time for comedic effect is when Mos Def runs out of the bar/cafe to head back to Arthur Dent's house near the beginning.  It almost seems out of place...but it succeeds in advancing Ford's quirky character.

[Jim H]

It's common in horror movies where the director is seeking the cheap scare; trained editors 'should' possibly say, "uh, no, that's crap," and cut it.

I will say I've seen quite a few horror films where these cheap scares couldn't be avoided by the editor- for example, times where a character is facing the camera, looking slightly off to not look into the lense, and in the same shot someone or something jumps in from one side.  It is completely ridiculous though, I have to say.  I liked the bit in There's Nothing Out There that mocks this cliche.

http://www.badmovies.org/multimedia/moviesv/nothingthere1.mpg