Why Deciphering Mona Lisa painting is easy than understanding what is good Editing in films
There are millions of people who rush to the Louvre Museum in Paris just to take a photo of Mona Lisa painting without trying to or wanting to understand it’s greatness. Mona Lisa can be seen, photographed, analysed and applauded for the way it was painted. Great Cinema will have many moments in it, which can be analysed and applauded. As Editing plays an important part in such a cinematic experience, can it be truly possible to unravel the art and science of film editing to its minutest detail? Like how Cinematography, Music, Acting or Sound Design are broken down and analysed, can Editing also be demystified? In a human body, if eyes play the role of cinematography, ears play the role of sound, music plays the role of heart, the director is like the whole body, then where is editing? I think it’s like breathe. Invisible, but most crucial.
What is editing? Now it can be treated as a simple question (Rs 1,000 level question on the TV show KBC with Amitabh Bachchan) or a complex question (Rs 10 Million question on KBC). When asked most people in the film industry, including film critics or reviewers, would say that “making sure there are no dull moments in the film” “it’s not too slow” “making sure a scene is not too lengthy” “making sure the audience are engaged” and so on. The audience would say, “removing what is not required” is what editing is.
To use an everyday example, when one goes shopping to buy clothes, one doesn’t go and say he is rejecting this brand or that brand. One selects a brand of his choice; the other brands are not selected, as they did not serve this particular need of the person at that point in time. Editors do something similar when they edit. The select the best take, either completely or a part of it, and build each scene. Editors or editing is a process of selecting shots; the other ones are not used, not necessarily rejected.
What is editing? For those who engage with film editing more deeply- like directors, producers and sometimes actors, they might have a slightly more evolved take on it like “ how much of the story written on paper and shot is getting translated onto screen by maintaining pace and rhythm”.
Even before I chose films as my profession, I have heard and read comments by famous directors that “editing is the place where the film gets made”. I used to wonder what was the fuss all about? Once I joined the Film School in Pune, my understanding gradually changed. I then heard and read, “ A film gets made at two tables- writing and editing”. This axiom became true for me when I started editing films.
So what makes a good edit? What does an editor do? On the internet, one can find the definition about editor as “an editor looks at the rushes, selects shots from various takes with different image sizes, puts them in a sequence and maintains tempo and rhythm which are in sync with the overall pacing of the story thereby building a effective story”. For those who truly understand, this statement is true. For those who don’t understand, this is just play of words.
When people complain that the film was too long, boring or dragging, they put the blame on the editor. Unless and until a person has been involved in the process of making a film, it is tough for them to figure out how decisions are made on editing, who makes them and at what stage. May be it’s the director who says that the pacing for him is all right. Even when the editor puts across the point that the scene has to be trimmed or shortened, the director feels that “that’s not how I saw it, let it play this way only”. Well what does an editor do then? It comes down to the director’s word against the editor’s judgment. As film-making is a collaborative effort, many opinions collide. Beyond a reasonable point, it becomes futile arguing with anyone be it the director, producer, star, actor or any other person who has a stake in the film. And since film-making is not science, the difference between opinion and fact gets blurred. Whoever has the biggest say or had the last hit or has the most vocal voice or any such attribute might get their way through the edit.
So is editing just a function of people’s opinions? Or is it a function of deciding which image size (Close up, Mid shot etc) should be used for each shot, what effects to use, how to keep it fast, how to make the audience bedazzled with the edit. Or is there more to it? What happens to the craft of Editing? All these lead to the crucial question- what does an editor actually do? Once we understand this, only then can be expect to get clarity on how to look at editing. Otherwise we are stuck in our preconceived notions of editing.
So can film editing, if it’s an art, be answered like science? Is there any science involved in this art at all? Or is editing just an extension of the editors instincts and experience? Editing can be explained. Yes there is a science to it. Or else editing can never be taught and then film schools would cease to exist. Yes, Editing is an art too, Editors are artists. And this art can be broken down to the minutest detailed. The reasons behind a cut can be understood, not only in a broad sense but also as to why it was cut at that particular frame. Even if a jump cut is being used between two shots, the choice of the frames should be such that the jump cut becomes smooth. One need not stop a film to study these aspects of editing, as that would take the viewer away from the story. But to understand the function of editing and how good a job the editor has done, this process has to be done. And it can be done as the film is playing in real time. Any experienced eye can make out such editing choices.
Many directors shoot a scene with multiple image sizes. What is known as “coverage” or “safety”. Each shot will have multiple takes and sometimes from different angles. When the editor has different options for the same shot- Close Shot, 2-Shot, Profile, Mid Shot or Long Shot etc, then it becomes all the more crucial in the selection of the image size for this shot. The editor selects a take and inserts that portion into the timeline. What shot comes before and after has a very major role to play in selecting this shot. Which angle is being selected also matters. Just because an editor has used a close up for the reaction of an actor, that need not be considered a good edit. Yes, the performance of the actor could get highlighted in the close up. And it is the responsibility of the editor to enhance the performance of the actor. But it’s also his responsibility to use this close up “judiciously”. And “judiciously” need not be left to personal interpretations. A close up gives the audience as insight into the soul of the character. It better be used carefully. Many a time, an editor builds a performance of an actor from multiple takes of the same shot. It’s very rare that anyone in the crew can make out that’s its from difference takes. Only the very keen eyed actor or the director can make out.
When the scene is being edited, when the reactions of the characters are required, it becomes extremely critical to use the correct expression at that place. Even if a character has not acted in the way desired, the editor has to “manufacture” a reaction that fits in at that point in time of the story. By “manufacture” I mean use an expression of his/hers that was not shot for this purpose. Or selecting from portions of the shot, which come before the director said “action” and those that come after he said “cut”. Using reactions from some other place in the scene and camouflaging it in such a way that this particular scene looks seamless.
If the in-point of the incoming shot is in sync and transitioning smoothly with the out-point of the previous shot, if one can notice that the duration of the shot playing appears to be correct, if the image size of the shots in a scene are not repeated too often, then the scene can be considered as a good edit. In a scene, which lasts 3 minutes, there might be 15–20 shots or so that have been shot. And a shot can be cut many times and be used across the scene. So there might be 60 cuts in the scene. Which shot should come where in the scene, which take of which shot to use and for how long should that take be kept in the edit is a function of the editors judgment. And herein comes the question. Is this judgment purely based on his instinct or there is a mechanism at work. Whether an editor articulates it or not, there is a mechanism at work. It’s the editor who builds a scene in its entirety. And when the scene is reviewed by members of the crew (mostly director and sometimes by the cinematographer, music director or the actor) they do suggest some changes to it. But the extent of these changes is mostly limited to lets say 20 % on an average. The rest of the scene is already in place. And the pace of the edit is directly related to the pacing in the shots, how actors performed, how it was shot etc.
The decision of keeping the scene in the film or removing can be a collective decision. So if a scene appears “lengthy” in the film or its pacing is slow, one should understand that its just not the editor’s decision alone.
I have heard the argument, even from editors, that unless one knows the footage that has been shot, one cannot say if the edit is good or not. I do not agree. One can still look at the edited film and still say if it has been edited well or not based on the above-mentioned parameters. An editor can always say that he has used a mid-shot instead of the 2-shot or a close up because he felt that is right, then there is no argument. It’s his personal preference. But is it in sync with the story? Or the way the scene is playing out? Is it all a matter of just personal preferences or can one decode for himself which shot to use? If an editor is aware of all this and then it get reflected in the edit, then the edit will be a good edit. If the editor is completely tuned into the world of the film, then he will have no personal preferences. The film will tell him and then each shot will fight to find a place in the film.
Painting is a spatial art, editing is a spatial and temporal art. In a painting like Mona Lisa, time is frozen. In a film that has been edited well, one is not aware of the time passing. If the smile of Mona Lisa can launch a thousand interpretations, understanding editing can either become an unsolved mystery or a Eureka moment. As Eyes can only show, the mind has to see.
