The technique of film editing (1958)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

definite dramatic point. Any number of other examples could be cited to show how this process works in dramatic or humorous scenes, but they would not lead us to any universally applicable principle : the editor's point of departure must always be the particular dramatic requirement of his scene. The simple editing pattern of two-shot and alternating close shots, used simply or with minor variations, is by no means the ideal way of directing a scene of dialogue. Most passages shot in this way are visually dull and gain little in translation from script to screen. The formula is used so extensively because writers so frequently give little indication of what visual action is to accompany the spoken words, and because it is easiest to handle : the director merely needs to cover the scene from, say, half a dozen different set-ups, and let the editor do the best he can with f he result. Mention of the writer brings us to the crux of the problem of successful direction of dialogue. If the scene is to be wholly successful then it must be visually interesting as well as worth listening to, and that requires planning in the script stage. If a writer has been satisfied to write a scene in terms of dialogue alone, leaving the images to be taken care of later, a director, able to improvise, may still succeed in producing an exciting sequence (or he may not). The point at issue is that the visual action needs at least as much creative attention as the dialogue itself and should certainly be given the benefit of a carefully planned script. As sometimes happens, the director, faced with a script which gives him no lead as to the appearance of the scene, chooses the simplest way out and merely covers the scene from a number of camera set-ups. The result, if well edited, is usually quite presentable and may, depending on the director, sometimes be dramatically effective. But the chances of scenes shot in this way being really successful are small ; mostly, they turn out rather flat. In a more adventurous approach to dialogue scenes the visuals can be used to contribute more positively to the total effect. Even if the words convey most of the facts and information, the images must still remain the primary vehicle for the dramatic interpretation. Before discussing this question more fully, let us take an example. THE PASSIONATE FRIENDS1 Excerpt from Reel 5 Howard Justin (Claude Rains), a wealthy and influential banker, has gone off on a business trip to Germany. During his 1 Director : David Lean. Editor • Geoffrey Foot. Cineguild, 1948. 90