Discussing Hitchcock

NickClapper

NickClapper

This is kind of promotion and kind of discussion. If it feels too much like promotion then feel free to move it (but I like to think of it as discussion :) )

I'm sure some of you caught Ernest Worthing's excellent article Dissecting Directors: Lynch last week.

Anyhow Ernest's next article in the series Dissecting Directors: Hitchcock is now up and I thought it was worthy of people reading and discussing!

It's a great article and it raises a whole bunch of interesting points about the way the Master of Suspense by dissecting his key work Vertigo- point by point, from composition to opening titles!

Anyhow I was wondering what everyone on here thought of Hitchcock in terms of favourite movies, favourite shots, favourite actors...etc. Or if there's someone willing to put their neck on the line and say that they don't like Hitch then...well, you've been warned! :D

And show Ernest some love :)
 
Ernest: "Hitchcock was meticulous in his preproduction and planning stage. He would storyboard the entire movie as he saw it in his mind, editing it shot by shot before production actually began."

This is interesting to me. I was watching the documentary "The cutting edge" recommended by Mr. Boo:

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=32775

They contend that the editor is like the 3rd writer after the scenarist and the director, taking the footage and creatively assembling shots in unforeseen ways.

All the while I kept wondering: is that always true? What if the director already has the movie in his mind and won't shoot anything but what he needs? This would leave the editor little choice. He would have to edit the way the director saw it. The role of the editor would be reduced to that of a technician rather than a creator.

Do editors hate that kind of directors?
 
Theodebernacius said:
Ernest: "Hitchcock was meticulous in his preproduction and planning stage. He would storyboard the entire movie as he saw it in his mind, editing it shot by shot before production actually began."

This is interesting to me. I was watching the documentary "The cutting edge" recommended by Mr. Boo:

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=32775

They contend that the editor is like the 3rd writer after the scenarist and the director, taking the footage and creatively assembling shots in unforeseen ways.

All the while I kept wondering: is that always true? What if the director already has the movie in his mind and won't shoot anything but what he needs? This would leave the editor little choice. He would have to edit the way the director saw it. The role of the editor would be reduced to that of a technician rather than a creator.

Do editors hate that kind of directors?
Click to expand...

The editor has so much power and deserves a lot of respect. They can change the movie completely if they so wished. There's a funny youtube example where someone edit the footage to make a Vader scene look comedic. Check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5blbv4WFriM


Now you can see just how much power they have and if left alone, the end product may feel nothing like the original concept. So i believe directing is required there as well. At the very least, the director and the editor have to talk about the pacing and feel of the movie. At the most, the director can have everything planned and the editor just has to follow instructions. Different directors work in that range and i think most fall somewhere in the middle where the director brings his ideas and the editor enhances them with his magic.

And i bet most editors, who did not know what they were getting into, would hate directors who reduced their role to a technician.

Any editors want to provide their input here.
 
Ernest Worthing said:
Any editors want to provide their input here.
Click to expand...

I'm not a professional, so any readers can take this with a grain of salt. However, of the many things I do, it is actually editing that I personally feel is my true strength.

Anyway, with that disclaimer out of the way, the main problem I have with a lack of coverage is that sometimes it just doesn't cut together well. Coverage helps an editor fix a director's mistakes (I can't tell you how many times editor-Joseph has cursed director-Joseph's name).

Now, if there's some director out there who can shoot exactly what they want, and it will actually cut together well, without any extra coverage, well damn, that sure would make the editor's job easy.

I don't think, however, that that would reduce an editor to merely being a "technician". Even when it's obvious which takes you'll be using, and in which order, there's still a great deal of art in the edit, pacing being the best example. Heck, even editing together a sequence of someone walking/running down the street is an art, and not everyone does it the same.

Oh, and Smartass Vader is one of my all-time favorite youtube clips!
 
Cracker Funk said:
I'm not a professional, so any readers can take this with a grain of salt. However, of the many things I do, it is actually editing that I personally feel is my true strength.

Anyway, with that disclaimer out of the way, the main problem I have with a lack of coverage is that sometimes it just doesn't cut together well. Coverage helps an editor fix a director's mistakes (I can't tell you how many times editor-Joseph has cursed director-Joseph's name).

Now, if there's some director out there who can shoot exactly what they want, and it will actually cut together well, without any extra coverage, well damn, that sure would make the editor's job easy.

I don't think, however, that that would reduce an editor to merely being a "technician". Even when it's obvious which takes you'll be using, and in which order, there's still a great deal of art in the edit, pacing being the best example. Heck, even editing together a sequence of someone walking/running down the street is an art, and not everyone does it the same.

Oh, and Smartass Vader is one of my all-time favorite youtube clips!
Click to expand...

Totally agree!
 
Cracker Funk said:
there's still a great deal of art in the edit, pacing being the best example. Heck, even editing together a sequence of someone walking/running down the street is an art, and not everyone does it the same.
Click to expand...

Of course, totally agree!

That's part of what i meant when i said it would depend on the degree of control the director would take.

When are the results of the 48h due, btw?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top