Ever get the feeling that movies these days have a totally different editorial "feel" or style, as compared to say films from the pre-1990's? I had noticed this for some time but it was only late last night as I was trying without success to get some sleep, that there is a very tangible difference in the flow and style of editing today.
To get what I am saying, let's go way back to the beginning of movies as we knew them. In the silent era, films were projected on 1,000 foot reels for roughly 10-15 minutes of run time per reel. (probably because that was the limit of endurance to hand crank a projector back then. ) So in the telling of a story back then, to help avoid a jarring transition at a reel end/reel change, editors tried to use shots that could be cut a bit short or transitioned with fades to black/ fades from black. This way, any timing errors during a changeover would be somewhat masked, as would any differences in projection light output, (and later, sound quality) etc.
Then with the advent of talkies and motorized projection, as well as better(?) writing and longer stories, projection migrated to the 2,000ft reel for projection. (Editing remained on 1,000ft reels to the end, which made things easier and less costly to change on post production.) The shift in editing followed, with the "story beats" timed to a 20 minute projection reel. (Since lab printing easily masked the mid point "A/B" splice, it was virtually never noticed on a projection reel.) Even a layperson would notice a splice at a reel change (on platter systems) with the accompanying pop or mute in sound for a split second.
In my career both as a projectionist and with seeing many films, there were very rare exceptions to this conscious (or subconscious) decision in the editing process.
One such very popular film was "Chariots Of Fire" where virtually EVERY reel change was in a critical dialog scene, and IIRC at least two were literally mid-sentence. I ran that film my very first month as a projectionist, 3 shows total. The first show was rough and my changeovers weren't "tight" enough. I spent a few hours with the offending reels and practiced and adjusted my start points to get them super tight to avoid screwing the dialogue up.
Think about all the movies (pre-digital era) that you have projected or watched as a moviegoer, and you'll realize the very pattern I am talking about. And it was a rule that transcended genres of films.
Now, we have digital. The need for physical "reels" is totally non existent. However, many editors did, and some still do, edit with the old 2000 foot break in mind. But it really is no longer necessary. Time code numbers provide to-the-frame easy access for the editorial process, so one can make the scene transitions at any time point without worrying about any cuts, breaks, or other distractions that would naturally occur with film projection. As with most things about the whole D-Cinema takeover, this is both good and bad.
The good is that one can tell the story without any concern for the drawbacks of physical reels affecting the flow or presentation of the movie. As a story writer myself, I like that idea as some of my own works would not work well on film, with forced breaks in the flow to accommodate the physical reels of film projection. (Which also explains in part why some novels adapted to the screen don't flow as well on film vs. reading the damn book.)
The bad has been becoming more obvious with the more movies I watch of late, and that is the story has NO beats to it at all, just a hellbent race to the end credits breathlessly. The visual and aural assault starts with the opening credits and ends when the file ends.
Look at some of the best of the older classic action/drama films, and you will note that the best of them have an action packed, lots of things happening sequence, intercut with some side sequences that allow the audience to catch their breath and prepare for the next action sequence. One outstanding example for me is The Empire Strikes Back. The escape from Hoth, and escape from Cloud City, Vader and Luke's fight, and so on. Same with Return Of The Jedi, the battle scenes on Endor and the fight in the Death Star are intercut masterfully, with breaks in the intense action to allow us to catch a breath.
Anyways, what do you all think? Have you noticed the changes as I have? If there are any editors/filmmakers lurking on here, what is your take on this? Do you feel, as I do, that movies are worse editorially since the digital era started, and if so, is it the fault of the presentation media (DCP vs. Film), the editorial process, the screenwriting, or just that the studios suck at moviemaking?
Have a Happy and safe Christmas and Happy New Year.
To get what I am saying, let's go way back to the beginning of movies as we knew them. In the silent era, films were projected on 1,000 foot reels for roughly 10-15 minutes of run time per reel. (probably because that was the limit of endurance to hand crank a projector back then. ) So in the telling of a story back then, to help avoid a jarring transition at a reel end/reel change, editors tried to use shots that could be cut a bit short or transitioned with fades to black/ fades from black. This way, any timing errors during a changeover would be somewhat masked, as would any differences in projection light output, (and later, sound quality) etc.
Then with the advent of talkies and motorized projection, as well as better(?) writing and longer stories, projection migrated to the 2,000ft reel for projection. (Editing remained on 1,000ft reels to the end, which made things easier and less costly to change on post production.) The shift in editing followed, with the "story beats" timed to a 20 minute projection reel. (Since lab printing easily masked the mid point "A/B" splice, it was virtually never noticed on a projection reel.) Even a layperson would notice a splice at a reel change (on platter systems) with the accompanying pop or mute in sound for a split second.
In my career both as a projectionist and with seeing many films, there were very rare exceptions to this conscious (or subconscious) decision in the editing process.
One such very popular film was "Chariots Of Fire" where virtually EVERY reel change was in a critical dialog scene, and IIRC at least two were literally mid-sentence. I ran that film my very first month as a projectionist, 3 shows total. The first show was rough and my changeovers weren't "tight" enough. I spent a few hours with the offending reels and practiced and adjusted my start points to get them super tight to avoid screwing the dialogue up.
Think about all the movies (pre-digital era) that you have projected or watched as a moviegoer, and you'll realize the very pattern I am talking about. And it was a rule that transcended genres of films.
Now, we have digital. The need for physical "reels" is totally non existent. However, many editors did, and some still do, edit with the old 2000 foot break in mind. But it really is no longer necessary. Time code numbers provide to-the-frame easy access for the editorial process, so one can make the scene transitions at any time point without worrying about any cuts, breaks, or other distractions that would naturally occur with film projection. As with most things about the whole D-Cinema takeover, this is both good and bad.
The good is that one can tell the story without any concern for the drawbacks of physical reels affecting the flow or presentation of the movie. As a story writer myself, I like that idea as some of my own works would not work well on film, with forced breaks in the flow to accommodate the physical reels of film projection. (Which also explains in part why some novels adapted to the screen don't flow as well on film vs. reading the damn book.)
The bad has been becoming more obvious with the more movies I watch of late, and that is the story has NO beats to it at all, just a hellbent race to the end credits breathlessly. The visual and aural assault starts with the opening credits and ends when the file ends.
Look at some of the best of the older classic action/drama films, and you will note that the best of them have an action packed, lots of things happening sequence, intercut with some side sequences that allow the audience to catch their breath and prepare for the next action sequence. One outstanding example for me is The Empire Strikes Back. The escape from Hoth, and escape from Cloud City, Vader and Luke's fight, and so on. Same with Return Of The Jedi, the battle scenes on Endor and the fight in the Death Star are intercut masterfully, with breaks in the intense action to allow us to catch a breath.
Anyways, what do you all think? Have you noticed the changes as I have? If there are any editors/filmmakers lurking on here, what is your take on this? Do you feel, as I do, that movies are worse editorially since the digital era started, and if so, is it the fault of the presentation media (DCP vs. Film), the editorial process, the screenwriting, or just that the studios suck at moviemaking?
Have a Happy and safe Christmas and Happy New Year.
Comment