The technique of film editing (1958)

development is revealed at the dramatically appropriate moment. This applies to the spacing of events within the whole story as well as to the timing of individual cuts. In order to get a clear picture of the full advantages which are derived from the purposive timing of cuts, it may be useful to consider two passages from a film which did not employ cutting at all : by assessing the loss in dramatic effectiveness which is incurred by discarding the factor of editing, we should be able to get a clear picture of its real value. Two short extracts from Alfred Hitchcock's film Rope are given below. The film was an experiment in which the director attempted to construct a continuity entirely without cuts : the action was kept moving by means of a continuously moving camera. (I) Two young college students, Brandon (John Dall) and Phillip (Farley Granger), have killed their fellow-student, David Kentley. Out of sheer bravado, they plan a party on the night of the murder to which they invite their old schoolmaster, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart), and the murdered boy's parents. Throughout most of the party, the boys succeed in hiding from their visitors the fact that they have seen David on the same night : they pretend to have invited him and feign surprise at his lateness. Rupert notices their strange nervous behaviour and begins to become suspicious. Then, as he is ready to depart, he goes to fetch his hat from the maid and accidentally finds the first material clue to the boys' guilt. In a mid-shot of Rupert and the maid we see her handing him a hat from the cupboard. Rupert absent-mindedly puts it on : it is the wrong hat, for it is obviously too small for him. He takes it off, lowers it down in front of him (la) and suddenly notices something inside. As Rupert holds the hat in front of him, the camera slowly moves in to a close shot (lb), and reveals that there are initials inside the hat — the initials of the murdered boy. (In order to let the camera pick out this detail it was necessary for Rupert to tilt the hat to one side and wait for a period of about three and a half seconds (5 feet of film) while the camera was moving in.) Then, when enough time has been given to the audience to identify the initials, the camera slowly moves up to show Rupert's expression (lc) as he suddenly realises what has happened. (2) Toward the end of the same film, Rupert has returned to the boys' flat to question them about David's disappearance. He has in his pocket the rope with which he suspects the boys strangled their friend, and is now ready to force them to confess. Rupert is standing with his back to the two boys. The camera is holding a close shot of his pocket : we see him take the rope from it (2a). He is talking obliquely about a murder, not referring to the details of the scene, but in a tone which makes it clear that he knows what has happened. Suddenly he turns around to face the boys, holding the' rope in front of him (2b) — giving the final proof that he knows who murdered David. While he goes on speaking, the camera slowly pans away to the right, recording in its path first the corner of the room (2c), then a neon sign visible outside the window (2d), and then finally reaching the reaction shot of the boys (2e). It takes the camera 10 feet to reach the boys and a further 5 feet to come to rest on them. Both these extracts show how the timing of effects is dulled by the inability to use cuts. In the first passage, there is a simple instance of how an effect can be wasted through bad timing. At 233