The world film encyclopedia (1933)

Film Editing 455 To begin with, the picture is far, far too long. A scene that takes three minutes actually to " shoot " has to be cut down to half-a-minute. I have to use my judgment as to which parts of the scene shall be cut. If I cut too much, the scene will appear too jerky. If I don't cut enough, the picture is going to drag and is going to run too long. Sometimes, I can cut out whole scenes by careful juggling. Take, for example, when two people are introduced. Both say " How do you do! " In a well-cut film, j'ou never hear this courtesy. It is cut right out. Yet nine hundred and ninety-nine people out of every thousand who watch this scene on the screen will swear that the characters greeted each other with these formal words. It is a case of imagination filling the breach. It is quite sufficient to put in a brief shot of the host making the introduction and you need not even hear him doing this ! Ha\ing cut out unnecessary scenes such as this, I next turn to speeding up other scenes. A fight, for example. Every alternate " frame " (each negative is referred to as a " frame ") can be cut out. This makes the fight far quicker, and exactly halves the running time. The picture now at a respectable length, there is still a lot of work left to be done. Many of the sequences can be twisted round entirely. Scene 99 may precede scene 40. Or maybe 40 and 41 will change round. You have to look at it from a story point of view. Imagine for a moment that a man is sitting at his desk. He is about to be murdered and outside the house is the murderer, awaiting his chance to enter. Is it better to show the murderer first or the man about to be murdered ? You have to take into consideration the whole trend of the story before deciding this. It may appear to be a trivial matter ; but all these small points make the difference between a successful picture and a failure. At last, the picture is ready for showing in its completed form : though not its final form. A.S a complete film, it is shown time and time again to the director, the executives and the film editor. Perhaps the picture will be re-edited several more times. Certain points in the story may not be quite clear enough. And, although as a general rule it is the story tliat counts and not the star, there are instances in which the star must be taken into consideration. If you have a player like Garbo you must stress her part. In a case like this, it is the star that counts more than the story and this is often the reason why big stars are accused of playing in mediocre pictures. The real reason is that the film editor has to play up to the star, a thing which I invariably avoid doing personally, for to my mind the stor}^ is the thing. When the studio people are satisfied with the picture, it is " tried on the dog." This crude expression is one used in the film business to describe the show'ing of a picture in an ordinary cinema when the audience is not expecting it. If the audience doesn't like the film (or any of the scenes) then the film editor gets to work once again. On many occasions, re-takes are even necessary. At this stage, it really is difficult to get hold of the cast once again. By this time, many of the players will have gone off elsewhere ; many of them to different studio:?, some of them even to different countries ! If the film passes the audience successfully, it is at last ready for the censor. Perhaps more trouble ! The censor wants this altered and that deleted. Once more the film editor has to use his wits to make the film coherent and easy to watch. Heavy Cutting It is really amazing how much can be cut out of a picture even after it has been cut several times. Just as an example — though I have no personal interest in this — there was the British serial, Lloyd of the C.I.D., which, after its editing, ran into about a dozen instalments of an average of half an hour each. The picture was generally released. A little while later the film editors had another go at it, and cut it down still more, with the