Support NeoGAF

[AlteredBeast]

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.

Which version of Lawrence did you see?

 

[curlyfriski]

No Ozu and no Dreyer, and more Nolan than Godard. Helps explain why modern Hollywood editing is such awful shit when these are their classics.

 

[Moppeh]

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"

People vote for best editing awards every year, and a lot of those people are editors. I would think the Editor's Guild would know a good edited one when they see it. I imagine what they look for are films that are historically important in terms of editing or are edited in a way which makes the film better. These are all good films, partly because they are edited so damn well.

 

[Griss]

Impossible to say what the best editing job was without knowing what different shots were on offer, and what was ultimately left entirely on the dressing room floor. It's just guesswork otherwise, given to well-put-together films.

We'll never know what editor absolutely saved a scene by convincing the director that some lead-in dialogue wasn't required etc, or which ruined one by not realizing to take it out.

EDIT: Beaten

 

[Addi]

eh, the list only has movies that would appear on best movies of all time lists, aren't there any "shit" movies with really good editing?

 

[Razorback]

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.

But what did the editor actually do that was great? That movie doesn't even need an editor.

 

[Fargo_Dog]

I always feel storyboarding is unfairly maligned when it comes to these conversations. Storyboarding is so vital and crucial to both good cinematography and editing but it so rarely gets brought up.

 

[Fargo_Dog]

But what did the editor actually do that was great? That movie doesn't even need an editor.

The flaw in this logic is that it makes the assumption that something good is something noticeable and showy, while I'd argue that it's completely the opposite. Good editing and good cinematography should be part of a whole and shouldn't call huge amounts of attention to themselves. A film should be shot and edited in a way which serves the story.

In that sense, Birdman's editing is great. It's edited exactly as it needs to be.

 

[Addi]

I always feel storyboarding is unfairly maligned when it comes to these conversations. Storyboarding is so vital and crucial to both good cinematography and editing but it so rarely gets brought up.

That is true, the storyboard in Psycho was made by Saul Bass, he was the one that basically created the shower scene like that.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I always feel storyboarding is unfairly maligned when it comes to these conversations. Storyboarding is so vital and crucial to both good cinematography and editing but it so rarely gets brought up.

Hasn't storyboarding reduced with the cost of filming (I mean literally the cost of film with digital) going down and more easily manipulated cameras?

 

[entremet]

eh, the list only has movies that would appear on best movies of all time lists, aren't there any "shit" movies with really good editing?

Editing a big component in what makes a movie good.

 

[Wreck-It Ralph]

This feels more like a "Best Films" list than a "Best Editing" list.

Like, for example, they have The Matrix on there, which is probably the Wachowskis' best film. But as far as Wachowski movies go, I'd absolutely put Speed Racer and Cloud Atlas above The Matrix in editing. Speed Racer jumps around in time with flashbacks and flashforwards and flashbacks inside of flashbacks, but it's always clear what's happening in the story. There's so much information and backstory conveyed in the first 20 minutes alone, all in the background of an engaging racing scene. And Cloud Atlas tells six stories simultaneously, seamlessly jumping back and forth between them.

 

[potam]

People vote for best editing awards every year, and a lot of those people are editors. I would think the Editor's Guild would know a good edited one when they see it. I imagine what they look for are films that are historically important in terms of editing or are edited in a way which makes the film better. These are all good films, partly because they are edited so damn well.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: imagine if there were a list of best movie soundtracks, and every one on this list is a classic/critically acclaimed movie. You don't think it's a little suspicious that they don't think there are any shitty movies out there with great soundtracks?

Editing a big component in what makes a movie good.

Yeah, but you can still have a movie with good editing that is ruined by other factors. I won't deny that any "great" movie probably has good editing, but I'm also going to assume there are plenty of shitty movies with good editing. And to create a list entirely revolving (supposedly) around editing, but to disregard that fact, seems a little silly.

 

[Bobs Big Boy]

Good, good, wanted to ensure Raging Bull got on.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Not a single Edgar Wright movie? I'm with the people who suggest this has a lot of great films that also have good editing, rather than being a list of the 75 best on editing alone.

 

[potam]

And how the fuck is Star Wars ahead of Pulp Fiction? And how did Memento not make top 10? They took a completely fucked up story and made it totally comprehensible. I'm no film buff/expert, but it is my expert opinion that the Editor's Guild is dumb.

 

[Forkball]

ITT people don't know what editing is or how it affects a film. I can understand disagreeing with some choices, but to call the list garbage? Raging Bull, Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane... yeah, GARBAGE.

Read this for a good idea on why a film like Raging Bull has better editing than... Speed Racer.

 

[Razorback]

The flaw in this logic is that it makes the assumption that something good is something noticeable and showy, while I'd argue that it's completely the opposite. Good editing and good cinematography should be part of a whole and shouldn't call huge amounts of attention to themselves. A film should be shot and edited in a way which serves the story.

In that sense, Birdman's editing is great. It's edited exactly as it needs to be.

Editing is editing. Birdman has almost none. There was nothing to edit besides choosing the best takes and putting them in order one after the other in chronological order.

Making the blends seamless is for the visual effects department. And it's a really simple thing to do if the shots were carefully planed ahead of time.

What was the editor's input that deserves so much praise in all of this?

It's like saying the special effects in Boyhood are amazing because they are seamless. Boyhood doesn't have any special effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_editing

 

[HIGH DEF JEFF]

I dont think Birdman deserves any praise for its editing..or lack of editing. Any cut/splice was planned to the second way ahead of time. All they needed from the editor was to drop the scenes on a timeline, in order, and hit render. Well not really but it was almost that simple.

 

[curlyfriski]

ITT people don't know what editing is or how it affects a film. I can understand disagreeing with some choices, but to call the list garbage? Raging Bull, Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane... yeah, GARBAGE.

Read this for a good idea on why a film like Raging Bull has better editing than... Speed Racer.

I agree with you that people here are confused about what editing entails, but if you really want to understand editing (and can handle a somewhat difficult read) there's no better person to go to than Eisenstein, the father of montage:
http://faculty.uca.edu/josepha/Electronic%20Handouts/Eisenstein-Ideogram.htm

 

[Discotheque]

haven't seen JFK in years. I keep hearing it brought up in random discussions too.

i think i'll check it out soon. I feel like Social Network and/or Scott Pilgrim should be here. regardless of what you think of either of these films they were the most impeccably tightly edited films i've seen in a while.

normally i think nolan's editing is wack but inception was actually an impressive feat forreal. they could have made a mess of that last act where they're balancing all 3 or 4 layers of dreams at once but he made it coherent and move along smoothly.

 

[Sub_Level]

You can bet that Lawrence of Arabia is there for the lighting of the match cut.

Lighting is editing? Maybe I am missing something...

 

[Wreck-It Ralph]

ITT people don't know what editing is or how it affects a film. I can understand disagreeing with some choices, but to call the list garbage? Raging Bull, Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane... yeah, GARBAGE.

Read this for a good idea on why a film like Raging Bull has better editing than... Speed Racer.

Where did I say the list was garbage? I just said that I think Speed Racer had better editing than The Matrix.

 

[Fancy Clown]

Lighting is editing? Maybe I am missing something...

 

[AlteredBeast]

Lighting is editing? Maybe I am missing something...

You are missing something, I will tell you that.

 

[glow]

Spun should be on there. Took editing to a higher level of artistry. Jonas Akerlund must not be a member of the Editor's Guild.

 

[Barkley's Justice]

The whole ending of Return of the Jedi is pretty ill imho, switching between the different scenarios, etc.

 

[Strax]

Which version of Lawrence did you see?

Lawrence it badly edited in the sense it's 40 mins too long. You could cut so much without losing anything of value to the story but you might lose some cool scenes.

 

[Akahige]

Apocalypse Now getting props for anything is good this me.

 

[way more]

Not including the best movie ever?

Joke list. #lol

 

[xbhaskarx]

16 STAR WARS (1977)
19 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)

Yeah sure.

 

[Chichikov]

Good list, can't really argue with it, seem a bit obvious maybe, but those movies are obvious choices for a reason.

Lawrence it badly edited in the sense it's 40 mins too long. You could cut so much without losing anything of value to the story but you might lose some cool scenes.

That's not really the sense that people talk about here though.
I also disagree with you that Lawrence of Arabia is too long, but that's a different point.

16 STAR WARS (1977)
19 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)

Yeah sure.

I never know how to rank such things, and for the record, I'm a huge 2001 fan and not really all that into Star Wars (I only really like the first one, and even it, I file mostly under dumb fun rather than masterpiece), but Star Wars is a well edited film.
Like, really well edited.

 

[Screaming Meat]

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

It's heavily edited to look that way.

The old saying is something like 'the best editing is that which you don't notice'. Doesn't always apply, mind. Sometimes edgy, abrasive or jarring editing works really well. Depends what the film is trying to achieve.

How do we know Birdman was done with editing and not some other visual trickery?

Editing, nay all film, is visual trickery.

 

[wanderingprostheyltite]

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.

YES. JFK lives and dies on its editing. Saw this in high school and was entranced by how they told the story through editing. The contrasting black and white scenes, sublime storytelling...

Spoiler

even if its contents are likely bunk

Apocalypse Now makes a lot of sense, one of the best paced long films I've seen, doesn't feel that long at all. Now Redux is another matter.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Yeah, but you can still have a movie with good editing that is ruined by other factors. I won't deny that any "great" movie probably has good editing, but I'm also going to assume there are plenty of shitty movies with good editing. And to create a list entirely revolving (supposedly) around editing, but to disregard that fact, seems a little silly.

It depends what factors make a movie "shitty".

Like, I consider a great movie one where all the parts work together harmoniously: music, editing, acting... everything. I'd personally put Oldboy, Sergio Leone Westerns or Fight Club in that sort of category. I think a "shitty" film generally pulls in lots of different directions rather than being a cohesive whole. In that sense, "great" editing should support a film's themes, put across the story in a suitable manner (whether smoothly or jarringly) , and add to (or subvert/undermine) immersion, all at the same time. I think a "shitty" movie wouldn't editing that does all that.

Did that make sense? XD

 

[AniHawk]

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.

i have nothing to add except that this reminds me of every frame a painting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPAloq5MCUA

 

[Strax]

That's not really the sense that people talk about here though.
I also disagree with you that Lawrence of Arabia is too long, but that's a different point.
.

I don't care that in what sense people are talking about it here. The editior should've sat David Lean down and slapped him silly until the he came to his senses about the length.

 

[xbhaskarx]

My personal "should be higher" list:

11 THE CONVERSATION (1974)
14 MEMENTO (2000)
15 GOODFELLAS (1990)
19 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)
29 REQUIEM FOR A DREAM (2000)
44 THE SHINING (1980)
47 VERTIGO (1958)
51 LIVING RUSSIA (THE MAN WITH A CAMERA) (1929)*
57 THE LIMEY (1999)
60 RASHOMON (1950)
69c MILLER’S CROSSING (1990)

*Not sure when they starting calling The Man With the Movie Camera by this other name...

 

[Razorback]

It's heavily edited to look that way.

The old saying is something like 'the best editing is that which you don't notice'. Doesn't always apply, mind. Sometimes edgy, abrasive or jarring editing works really well. Depends what the film is trying to achieve.



Editing, nay all film, is visual trickery.

Man, I've explained this like three times already. How is it heavily edited? Are you talking about the transitions between takes that are masked by simply going into black areas and out again? Some of the more complex transitions use CGI but that's not editing, that's a visual effect.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Lawrence it badly edited in the sense it's 40 mins too long. You could cut so much without losing anything of value to the story but you might lose some cool scenes.

Which version of Lawrence did you see?

 

[Fargo_Dog]

Editing is editing. Birdman has almost none. There was nothing to edit besides choosing the best takes and putting them in order one after the other in chronological order.

Making the blends seamless is for the visual effects department. And it's a really simple thing to do if the shots were carefully planed ahead of time.

What was the editor's input that deserves so much praise in all of this?

It's like saying the special effects in Boyhood are amazing because they are seamless. Boyhood doesn't have any special effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_editing

Your comparison to Boyhood doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Birdman was edited to look like it wasn't edited. You don't just staple a visual effect onto a film and suddenly it looks like a single take. It was the editor's job to take the disparate parts - the individual takes, the transitional VFX work - and piece them together to form a coherent whole. The fact that you don't see any editing in it speaks to the entire thing being a success.

I'm not sure why you thought linking me to the Wikipedia article on editing was a good idea when you apparently can't comprehend editing that goes beyond just stitching shots together.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Man, I've explained this like three times already. How is it heavily edited? Are you talking about the transitions between takes that are masked by simply going into black areas and out again? Some of the more complex transitions use CGI but that's not editing, that's a visual effect.

Editing is a visual effect. It's not limited to stitching shit together, man, it's fundamental to story telling and the audience's understanding of what's going on. Fargo_Dog put it really well:

Birdman was edited to look like it wasn't edited. You don't just staple a visual effect onto a film and suddenly it looks like a single take. It was the editor's job to take the disparate parts - the individual takes, the transitional VFX work - and piece them together to form a coherent whole. The fact that you don't see any editing in it speaks to the entire thing being a success.

As I said, the age old adage is: editing is at it's best when you don't notice it (depending on the film's individual requirements).

I bet you think comic inkers just trace stuff

 

[Razorback]

Your comparison to Boyhood doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Birdman was edited to look like it wasn't edited.You don't just staple a visual effect onto a film and suddenly it looks like a single take.

Why not? That is exactly what you do.

It was the editor's job to take the disparate parts - the individual takes, the transitional VFX work - and piece them together to form a coherent whole. The fact that you don't see any editing in it speaks to the entire thing being a success.

Ok, imagine this. You have two 5 minute long takes. At the end of the first take the action goes from an interior set to an outside scene. The beginning of the second take doesn't exactly match up with the ending of the first. So you give that footage to a VFX guy. He does his thing, blends everything nicely so you can't tell that there was a cut. He sends the footage now to the editor.

And the editor now does...what, exactly?

And by the way, I could tell where they made some of the cuts while watching the movie, so it wasn't event that seamless. And is that really what impresses you so much? That the cuts are invisible? That's one of simplest things you can do in VFX. It's a technical achievement, not an artistic one. Edting is an art form.

I'm not sure why you thought linking me to the Wikipedia article on editing was a good idea when you apparently can't comprehend editing that goes beyond just stitching shots together.

Care to explain what editing entails then?

 

[scorcher59]

Gatdammit if nobody has noticed i'll do it

 

[maquiladora]

Now I feel like watching The French Connection again. It's been too long.

Edit : No Close Encounters in the top 75? Ridiculous. Michael Kahn's editing for it was phenomenal.

 

[NinjaTehFish]

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.

Eh, I felt a lot of the transitions were obvious.

List feels a bit snobby with its lack of modern films as if technology hasn't had any influence on how a film can be edited.

 

[Mandius]

Ok, imagine this. You have two 5 minute long takes. At the end of the first take the action goes from an interior set to an outside scene. The beginning of the second take doesn't exactly match up with the ending of the first. So you give that footage to a VFX guy. He does his thing, blends everything nicely so you can't tell that there was a cut. He sends the footage now to the editor.

And the editor now does...what, exactly?

The editor would approve the edit that the VFX guy just made for him/her.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Why not? That is exactly what you do.

Stitching 'Birdman' Together with Editors Douglas Crise and Stephen Mirrione:

"They blocked everything out and it allowed Alejandro and us to look at scenes before they were completely shot and fix things that you would normally fix later on in any other movie," explains Crise. "But the rehearsal assembly was pretty similar to what was shot."

"It still ends up being the same process but we are little bit more present and vocal in terms of chiming in and getting direction," adds Mirrione.

The director requested Crise's presence on set everyday to discuss where to strategically remove edits. They tried different techniques and experiments: panning on walls and posters and the actors' bodies, with Rodeo FX digitally removing the seams. And without cutting points, they relied on Antonio Sanchez's percussive score (particularly his incessant drumming) to provide rhythm and pace.

But early on when Crise recommended cutting to Keaton during a scene when he's interviewed by a group of snarky journos, G. Iñárritu joked, "'Does Doug know that we're not cutting any of this movie?"

The director then reshot the scene to put the emphasis on Keaton and Crise was surprised to learn that he had that kind of influence.

Eh, I felt a lot of the transitions were obvious.

I imagine it's quite distracting looking for them.

 

[iddqd]

I always feel storyboarding is unfairly maligned when it comes to these conversations. Storyboarding is so vital and crucial to both good cinematography and editing but it so rarely gets brought up.

As a storyboarder, I approve this message.
(Though, just as an example, a current episode I'm working on has maybe 20% of the shots I first came up with left. The director and the producers have huge input)

 

[Razorback]

"They blocked everything out and it allowed Alejandro and us to look at scenes before they were completely shot and fix things that you would normally fix later on in any other movie," explains Crise. "But the rehearsal assembly was pretty similar to what was shot."

"It still ends up being the same process but we are little bit more present and vocal in terms of chiming in and getting direction," adds Mirrione.

The director requested Crise's presence on set everyday to discuss where to strategically remove edits. They tried different techniques and experiments: panning on walls and posters and the actors' bodies, with Rodeo FX digitally removing the seams. And without cutting points, they relied on Antonio Sanchez's percussive score (particularly his incessant drumming) to provide rhythm and pace.

But early on when Crise recommended cutting to Keaton during a scene when he's interviewed by a group of snarky journos, G. Iñárritu joked, "'Does Doug know that we're not cutting any of this movie?"

The director then reshot the scene to put the emphasis on Keaton and Crise was surprised to learn that he had that kind of influence.[/url]

I read the whole article. None of that is editing. It is staging, choreography, very careful planning and finally vfx.