|
|
|
Cars, planes and, now, computers affect the geography of where we live and work ... Pagers and cellular phones influence how, when, and even how much we work ... Radio, Television and the Internet help dictate the types of information that we consider important, and even lay the basic framework of how we perceive others and the world around us ... So is it hard to believe that an entirely new set of editing tools might affect the content of our films? Editor's Note: It should be noted that the film Return of the Jedi, often used as demonstration material for the original EditDroid (1984-86) was not cut electronically, but on film. While Lucasfilm never claimed ROTJ was cut on the Droid, many individuals were mislead by LFL marketing materials, including the editor of the first film cut on the EditDroid (Rick Westover, The Patriot, 1985) who did not realize he was the first to use the system on a feature film. Mr. Brandt was similarly misled. These facts, however, should not detract from the methods and observations of Mr. Brandt, and we continue to present this interesting thesis for continued debate. Traditional
Film Editing vs. Electronic Nonlinear Film Editing: by
Michael Brandt Abstract Executive Summary
This study is a part of an ongoing research program to examine the shift from traditional feature film editing tools to nonlinear, electronic editing systems. The purpose of this initial stage of the research is twofold: (1) to develop quantitative and objective measures which are useful in examining patterns of editing in Hollywood films; and (2) to apply these measures to the question of what difference, if any, electronic nonlinear editing systems make in the final film. There is some reason to believe that when an artist's tools change, the artist's end product will also change. However, at the time this study was undertaken, there was no scientific evidence to support this notion in regard to editors and Hollywood films.
In order to maximize the likelihood that any differences found are due to the editing system used, the study controlled for genre and editor. It was not possible to simultaneously control for director, but the analysis included many aspects of directorial style in order to account for differences that might be due to the director's input. Controlling for genre and editor, along with the desire to analyze whole films (as opposed to selected scenes or shots) eliminated the possibility of employing a random sample. At the time this study was undertaken, only the Montage and EditDroid systems had been used to cut a sufficient number of major budget feature films from which to choose. (Furthermore, the need to control for genre and editor severely constrained the possibilities, and of course, the films had to be available on videotape in order to be analyzed.) More contemporary systems like the Lightworks, Ediflex III, or Avid Film Composer had not yet been used on a sufficient number of major budget films available on videotape. The following table presents the films analyzed along with their editors, editing systems, and genres.
Measures, Hypotheses and ResultsEvery shot in each of the six films was described in terms of the characteristics that are salient to an editor — that is, any characteristic of the shot that might be considered in the editor's decision-making process or that is evidence of a creative choice on the part of the editor. Some of these characteristics (e.g., camera movement) are also indicative of a director's control or style. The characteristics were tabulated for direct comparison between genre and system. They were also used for constructing three indexes: shot complexity, shot closeness, and dialog complexity. The following is the list of elements measured: Elements Measured in the Films
The shot complexity index was created primarily to compare the way the films were directed. This index includes the elements involving actor and camera movement, filmmaking components generally attributed to the director. Since it was not possible to hold director constant throughout the films, this index allows for the comparison of aspects of directorial style which possibly affect the editing. The closer the number, the more similar the style. For the six films in this study, the average shot complexity value between the systems is nearly identical, indicating a similar directorial style throughout the films. Thus, any differences found in this study can be attributed to variables other than director. Average shot length One possible change brought about by different editing systems is a change in average shot length. The additions of sound and widescreen both affected shot length greatly, and the mere fact that it is so easy to make a cut with an electronic system may drive the average shot length down. Thus, the following hypothesis:
The hypothesis was supported, with the films cut traditionally having an average shot length of 5.15 seconds, compared to 4.75 seconds for the electronically cut films, a difference of -8%. The results varied from 3.13 seconds average per shot for Star Wars to 7.42 seconds per shot for Born on the 4th of July. The Science Fiction films in this study have an average shot length that is extraordinarily short. Because of this, their results are not consistent with the rest of the films. Star Wars (traditionally cut) actually has a shorter average shot length than Return of the Jedi (electronically cut on the EditDroid). But, as the average shot length grows with the different genres, so does the difference between systems, with electronically edited films being cut much quicker. In other words, the slower cut films are affected more by the editing system, and this difference may ultimately affect the audience's perception of the story. Other studies have shown that it takes an audience anywhere from .5 to 3 seconds to adjust to a new shot. If it takes the audience three seconds just to adjust to a cut to a shot, what happens when the average shot length is so short that the audience is never given a chance to catch up? Even if the adjustment to each shot can be made, it does not mean that proper absorption of the material (both picture and sound) takes place. Certainly, as each viewer picks and chooses the shots he or she pays attention to, there must be shots which audience members never fully absorb. As a result, the audience is only able to read the shots in very gross terms set up by the audience members themselves. This is not always negative, though. As a creative tool, quick cutting can be used to increase tension. For example, in Patriot Games there is a scene in the war room in which the main character, Jack Ryan, watches on computer screens the killing of terrorists on the other side of the world. Editor Neil Travis decided to decrease the length of each shot from the shot preceding it, eventually to where the shots are a fraction of a second long. The same was done in Star Wars, during the scene where Luke fires the torpedo that blows up the Death Star. Used in situations where the shots do not have a tremendous amount of new information (as in Patriot Games, and Star Wars), the heightened tension can create a very effective sensation for the audience, one that lifts the story to another level. There is no doubt that the lightning-quick cutting of Star Wars and Return of the Jedi is a very effective way of telling the story. Opticals Use of opticals, such as fades, dissolves and wipes, is an area where electronic systems will have an enormous impact. Because it is much easier to create and test opticals with electronic systems, their use will undoubtedly increase. This suggests the following hypothesis:
This hypothesis also was supported. Opticals appear nearly twice as often in the electronically cut films as in the traditional ones. They are in 3.10% of the shots in the electronic films, compared to 1.56% of the shots in the traditional ones. Electronic editing will probably have a greater effect on the use of opticals than any other aspect of filmmaking. Primarily used as transitions between scenes, opticals have long been something that inexperienced editors had to guess at. Not being able to see what an intended optical would look like (and having to pay trial-and-error lab fees to find out) certainly must have caused editors to shy away from them at times. Now, however, anyone with a computer can create fairly intricate effects and see them in a matter of seconds. The future will undoubtedly be filled with more computer-generated special effects. Along with effects that are new and groundbreaking, we should be prepared for more of the same effects that have been used for years as well. Shot closeness The shot closeness index was created to compare the compositions of shots chosen by the editor. Different compositional elements were given a value based on the size of the image in the shot. This index was created because of the different viewing environments each system provides the editor. The viewing situation (the lower resolution of digitized video compared to film, for example) could affect the types of shots chosen. For example, editors using electronic systems might be more inclined to use close-ups because those types of shots look better at lower resolutions. The following hypothesis was developed:
The difference found in the sample of films was not statistically significant. It is important to note that the larger population of Hollywood films may contain a difference which might be detected in a larger sample. Dialog complexity The dialog complexity index analyzes the use of dialog, and rates the complexity of it to the editor. Off screen dialog rates the simplest because maintaining sound and picture synchronization is not necessary. On screen dialog rates as more complex than off screen, but not as complex as a split edit, where on and off screen dialog are used. This scale was created because of the tremendous difference in the way dialog is handled between traditional and electronic systems. It is much easier to move picture or sound elements around in an electronic system, and sound and picture synchronization is automatically maintained by the machine. Thus, the following hypothesis was created:
There was a significant difference between systems, but it was opposite of the hypothesized conclusion. Traditionally cut films average 1.093 (more complex) for dialog complexity compared to the electronically cut films which average .873. This is a difference of -20%. The result is opposite of expected because of the way the terms are defined in this study. The measure itself was good in showing a difference; it just needs to be modified. Electronic systems inherently make it easier for the editor to find a shot and place it in the film. The statistics here indicate that while a character is speaking in an electronically edited film, other things, besides the person speaking and the person being spoken to, are quite often shown, presumably because it is so much easier to find another image and insert it. This use of picture without sound drove the dialog complexity value down, when in fact, the edited sequence was more complex for the editor. Electronic systems' nearly instant access to any image makes finding alternative images easier. In fact, it is quite possible that editors go out of their way to find alternative images simply because they can. The use of alternative images may seem like a more creative way to edit, different from the way the editor had been forced to edit on traditional systems in the past. Looking for, and easily finding and inserting an alternative image, may give the editor a feeling of having a greater effect on the film. In this study, the electronically cut films used reverse shots 30% less often than the traditionally cut films, often replacing them with alternative images. This is a tremendous difference for the most practiced dialog sequence technique. There is little doubt that the shot-reverse shot style will remain dominant, but it is also likely there will be a greater number of variations to editing dialog when electronic systems are used. Conclusion & Research Results Shot Complexity Average Shot Length Shots Containing Optical Transitions Dialog Complexity
The editing of the three films cut on traditional systems is clearly different from that of the three films cut electronically. There are statistically significant differences on a number of measures, and although the sample is not random (and therefore the differences apply only to these films and not to the whole universe of Hollywood films), the films examined are in many ways "typical" Hollywood product. They are representative in an intuitive way, if not in a strictly mathematical sense. It would be difficult to argue that these six films are so peculiar that differences shown to be linked to the type of editing system would not also be found, perhaps to varying degrees, in other Hollywood films. This study shows that changing the editing tool does make a difference in the final film. Further research in this area will help us understand more.
© Copyright 1994, Michael W. Brandt. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
After receiving his Masters in Communication Studies from Baylor, Brandt began his editing career in his Kansas City hometown, where he cut the feature film "Ninth Street," starring Martin Sheen and Isaac Hayes. After a stint doing commercials, he moved to Los Angeles and returned to feature editing, with the Metropolitan Pictures-produced "Malevolence." Since then, Brandt has edited various films, including the Rana Joy Glickman / Beeaje Quick film "Real Stories Of The Donut Men." He has also worked as post supervisor and assistant editor on the Quentin Tarantino-produced "Full Tilt Boogie" and "God Said Ha!", and was recently the assistant editor on the Robert Rodriguez film, "The Faculty." |