• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Best Edited Flims (Editor's Guild Magazine)

Status
Not open for further replies.

entremet

Member
The 75 Best Edited Films’ years of release range from the 1920s to the 2010s — with 3 titles each in both of those decades. Most of the films cited are from the 1970s (17), followed by the ‘90s (16), the ‘60s (13), the ‘50s (8), the ‘00s (7), the ‘80s (5) and the ‘40s (3). Curiously, there were no films chosen from the 1930s.
Four years account for 3 films each on the list: 1969, 1974, 1999 and 2001. The winning year is 1974, with all 3 of its titles in the top 31 films. There is a run of 15 consecutive years (1968-82) with a film or more on the list for each year. This is followed by 8 years with no films on the list.

The Directors
As for directors, Alfred Hitchcock is the most often cited, making the list 5 times (although not placing in the top 10), and spanning 3 decades. Right behind him are Steven Spielberg and Francis Ford Coppola, both of whom made the list 4 times. Like Hitchcock, Spielberg’s pictures were released over 3 decades. Coppola’s pictures, however, were all released in the 1970s — with 2 in 1974 (the only director with 2 films in a single year). All of his pictures placed in the top 22 films, with 3 of them in the top 11. At the other end of the continuum, there were 33 years between Terrence Malick’s 2 films on the list.

Directors Stanley Kubrick and Martin Scorsese follow, with 3 films each making the cut. Tied with Malick for 2 pictures are Bob Fosse, William Friedkin, Akira Kurosawa, Christopher Nolan, Ridley Scott, Steven Soderbergh, Orson Welles and Bob Wise; all others received 1 mention.

Top 10:

1 RAGING BULL (1980)
2 CITIZEN KANE (1941)
3 APOCALYPSE NOW (1979)
4 ALL THAT JAZZ (1979)
5 BONNIE AND CLYDE (1967)
6 THE GODFATHER (1972)
7 LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)
8 JAWS (1975)
9 JFK (1991)
10 THE FRENCH CONNECTION (1971)

The rest are here:

https://www.editorsguild.com/Magazine.cfm?ArticleID=1102
 

Switch Back 9

a lot of my threads involve me fucking up somehow. Perhaps I'm a moron?
Not being a film student or buff, what exactly qualifies good editing? What are the criteriA?
 
Even though i don't really like the movie all that much, there's a very strong argument to be made for Birdman being on any sort of Top Editing lists. It's really a technical marvel.
 

iddqd

Member
These things are always a lot more about "How the film is viewed now" and "What is the age of the voter, when were they in the PRIME of being influenced."

Thats why the 70s are so strong right now. Men in their 50s and 60s are in position to vote on these things.

The Social Network, Birdman etc. will show up in 20 years.
 

DYLANH24

Neo Member
The art of editing is absent from that movie. How can it top any lists?

Well some shots would be impossible without invisible edits, mainly the scene where Michael Keaton imagines himself flying as well the camera having to actually cut at points, the part where he walks out through the door to the bar when the screen goes black for a second or two it's the camera cutting and then going to the next shot of him walking out.

The other (very obvious) transition to another shot is when the camera pans up to the sky and the time of day changes from sunlight to night time.
 

Strax

Member
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is by no means great in terms of editing and it's such bullshit that it won Oscar for best editing. Parts of The Godfather are also really bad.
 

Strax

Member
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly not in the top 75.

g93Xf7W.gif
 

Senoculum

Member
Not being a film student or buff, what exactly qualifies good editing? What are the criteriA?


Traditionally, it seems the category favours the accomplishment of the amount (or perceived amount) of work put into the the editing. Do they choose the most ambitious editorial workload of those in the running? The degree of the editor’s skill or participation could be instrumental, collaborative, political or mechanical - they call it Best Editing NOT Best Editor. We can have a favourite director or favourite composer but can we have a favourite film editor? This has always been the most difficult category to guess who wins in award season.

I'm an editor myself, and I'll say outright that an audience only has about 1.3 seconds to register what they're watching. An editor looks at their footage frame-by-frame; and we choose the best shot not just because of the performance, but because of the background, the colours, the shape, the position of the eye line, and the context to what comes before and after.

And an editor is only as good as their director of photography and the script supervisor on set. Countless times I've had to re-jig a story because either a scene wasn't captured, or the location changed in the last minute which creates awkward transitions.

I feel bad for all the editors who've put in a lot in their craft, but don't get recognized because the film was a mess to begin with.

Films whose editing I've appreciated were City of God, Zero Dark Thirty, and of recent note, Guardians of the Galaxy (seriously).
 

Jigorath

Banned
The Social Network should be up there. It was so fast and intense for a movie that was just people talking and writing code.
 
So many safe choices but the inclusion of what I consider the best edited movie ever (along with being my favorite movie ever), JFK, is cool.

Another Stone film that should be in the Top 10 is Natural Born Killers.
 

Timeaisis

Member
The art of editing is absent from that movie. How can it top any lists?

It's edited to look like there is no editing. That's like...the highest compliment I can think give to film editing, like, ever. You feel like you are right there in the movie.

EDIT to actually add to the conversation of the top 10:
Jaws is probably my be-all-end-all for film editing. It's really well done.
 

JB1981

Member
So many safe choices but the inclusion of what I consider the best edited movie ever (along with being my favorite movie ever), JFK, is cool.

Another Stone film that should be in the Top 10 is Natural Born Killers.

Yea I appreciated that inclusion too. Editing is ridiculous in that movie.
 

Razorback

Member
It's edited to look like there is no editing. That's like...the highest compliment I can think give to film editing, like, ever. You feel like you are right there in the movie.

EDIT to actually add to the conversation of the top 10:
Jaws is probably my be-all-end-all for film editing. It's really well done.

But there's nothing amazing about the editing itself. It's just splicing together very carefully planed long shots. The planning is amazing, the camera work is amazing. The editing itself is mostly absent. Making the shots blend together is the visual effects' department, not editing.
 

Aurongel

Member
I don't want to turn this into another typical "WHY ISN'T THING I LIKE ON YOUR LIST" thread but I'm honestly surprised by the lack of David Fincher films higher on the list.

I've had friends who've studied editing tell me that some of his films are modern marvels in terms of editing.
 

Ridley327

Member
seems like the only Eastern films that are recognized is from Akira Kurosawa.

I'd have to assume that they mostly polled western filmmakers, and Kurosawa is heads, tails, and everything-in-between above other Eastern filmmakers in terms of popularity.
 

Timeaisis

Member
But there's nothing amazing about the editing itself. It's just splicing together very carefully planed long shots. The planning is amazing, the camera work is amazing. The editing itself is mostly absent. Making the shots blend together is the visual effects' department, not editing.

Like someone said above me, it's really difficult to decide what "good editing" is in that sense, because it depends on a number of other factors: cinematography, visual effects, etc. But, to me, Birdman has good editing because I didn't even notice the editing. It's entirely subjective. Maybe the editor had really good source stuff to work with, who knows. End of the day, I think it was good editing, though.
 

andymcc

Banned
their #1 is my favorite too. the way the matches are cut is just unreal.

Thelma Schoonmaker is Scorsese's best asset.
 

Jimothy

Member
Apocalypse Now will forever be number one simply for the sheer amount of footage the editors had to sift through to make a coherent, well paced movie.
 
Apocalypse Now will forever be number one simply for the sheer amount of footage the editors had to sift through to make a coherent, well paced movie.

On a similar note, I think all great documentaries deserve some acknowledgement because this is pretty much what most of them have to do is one way or another.
 
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is by no means great in terms of editing and it's such bullshit that it won Oscar for best editing. Parts of The Godfather are also really bad.

It's cuz it has this bomb-ass cut in it:
lawrence-of-arabia-2-o.gif


Apocalypse Now will forever be number one simply for the sheer amount of footage the editors had to sift through to make a coherent, well paced movie.

And because Walter Murch is a god. I actually think the sound mixing and editing is equally, if not more, impressive as the picture editing
 
On a similar note, I think all great documentaries deserve some acknowledgement because this is pretty much what most of them have to do is one way or another.

But they can go through transcrips and use video to mask changes.

That being said Errol Morris docs are editing marvels and go beyond standard cut up interviews.

edit: you did say "great" docs so I probably agree actually.
 

potam

Banned
Seems like a bullshit list. What about all the shitty movies (directors, actors, screenplay) which had great editing? And what the hell does "good editing" even mean?
 

KingGondo

Banned
The first film I thought of when I saw the thread title was Raging Bull.

For anyone who doesn't know what great editing looks like, watch that first. Phenomenal movie.
 
Seems like a bullshit list. What about all the shitty movies (directors, actors, screenplay) which had great editing? And what the hell does "good editing" even mean?

Editing is always really tough to judge because it's as much about what got cut as what's in the final picture. Usually it refers to pacing and shot/scene transitions. But no one except the editor will ever know how much more impactful a scene was by going with the single vs a two shot.
 

Enduin

No bald cap? Lies!
Seen most, agree with most. But Hugo, bleh terrible film, don't remember the editing or anything to be all that great.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
Seems like a bullshit list. What about all the shitty movies (directors, actors, screenplay) which had great editing? And what the hell does "good editing" even mean?

There are some extremely dubious choices for sure. Blade Runner? Great film but seriously which cut are we talking about, the thing exists in 3 widely distributed versions.

If any Ridley Scott movie deserves being on the list its Alien, and the magnificent work of Terry Rawlings.
 
Traditionally, it seems the category favours the accomplishment of the amount (or perceived amount) of work put into the the editing. Do they choose the most ambitious editorial workload of those in the running? The degree of the editor’s skill or participation could be instrumental, collaborative, political or mechanical - they call it Best Editing NOT Best Editor. We can have a favourite director or favourite composer but can we have a favourite film editor? This has always been the most difficult category to guess who wins in award season.

I'm an editor myself, and I'll say outright that an audience only has about 1.3 seconds to register what they're watching. An editor looks at their footage frame-by-frame; and we choose the best shot not just because of the performance, but because of the background, the colours, the shape, the position of the eye line, and the context to what comes before and after.

And an editor is only as good as their director of photography and the script supervisor on set. Countless times I've had to re-jig a story because either a scene wasn't captured, or the location changed in the last minute which creates awkward transitions.

I feel bad for all the editors who've put in a lot in their craft, but don't get recognized because the film was a mess to begin with.

Films whose editing I've appreciated were City of God, Zero Dark Thirty, and of recent note, Guardians of the Galaxy (seriously).

That's some cool stuff, thanks for the post.
 

potam

Banned
Editing is always really tough to judge because it's as much about what got cut as what's in the final picture. Usually it refers to pacing and shot/scene transitions. But no one except the editor will ever know how much more impactful a scene was by going with the single vs a two shot.

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. Unless the judges were looking at every film's final cut along with all the shot footage, the list essentially comes off as "Good movies which lack obviously shit editing"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom