editing Editing: Film/Scene Length Opinions

[Metrostar]

I am editing a feature length drama. I started out with 1hr 45mins of film, which I have since cut down to 1hr 30mins. I showed it to someone in the business and he said that it sill drags. I can see his point, but it's a drama that takes place over a few months, with outside scenes that show a change in the seasons and I was going for a slower pace to hopefully convey this time period.

Anyway, yesterday a fellow filmmaker that I am friends with copied some text out of a book on editing and sent it to me. The text says:

"A movie story should start as late as possible and occur over the shortest reasonable span of time. A film that uses too much time setting up the ordinary world of the characters or that spreads over three weeks a story that can be told in three days will feel slack.

In individual scenes, don't waste valuable time on unnecessary entrances and hellos, see if a scene can be started in the middle. A screenwriter or director who is willing to self-edit will often find that a scene is strengthened by cutting the first two, and often last two, lines of dialogue."*

So, my question is, how literally should I take this advice (especially the second part) and can anyone with experience of editing feature films chime in with their own opinion?

*Sorry for not getting the source of the quote.

 

[moonshieldmedia]

I think the editing in the first one was fine. The reason why it drags to me is because of the acting/writing/camera angle

The setting of the scene is beautiful and I think a slow pace works for that wide open space. I would have done even less cuts if the acting was better. maybe even just a single wide shot with some punch-ins toward the end.

Since there's not much you can do about the extreme camera angle, acting, or dialogue, I think your savior in this scene will be a nice rich soundscape. ADR is a bad move though, loses all the emotion in the scene

 

[AudioPostExpert]

The setting of the scene is beautiful and I think a slow pace works for that wide open space.

Maybe it's just me, but this advice seems completely backwards to me. Unless the OP wants a beautiful scene which appeals to photographers but is slow and boring to everyone else, shouldn't the cinematography be edited for the film rather than editing the film for the cinematography?

The reason why it drags to me is because of the acting/writing/camera angle... I would have done even less cuts...

I agree as to why it drags, maybe not so much the writing as the acting/delivery and camera angles though. But I don't see how the solution to this dragging problem is to leave the scene slow or to make it drag even more, maybe I've misunderstood or am missing something?

Since there's not much you can do about the extreme camera angle, acting, or dialogue...

Why is there not much the OP can do, doesn't Picture and Dialogue editing exist for the very reason of manipulating and aiding the shots, acting and dialogue? I completely get your point though, if there is no other footage, alt takes or different angles, the OP's options are massively reduced but there are still maybe a few options.

Pacing is always (or should always be) a major concern in editing. It seems to me that many aspiring filmmakers approach filmmaking from the point of view of; the film is actually made during filming (the production phase) and then tightened/enhanced in post-production. This isn't how the good professional narrative filmmakers approach filmmaking though where; the film is actually made in post-production and the filming/production phase exists just to provide the raw materials for post-production. The disadvantage of the former approach is that while you might get footage which looks good, there are relatively few options in post to alter pace, create shape, enhance or diminish dramatic impact, manufacture good acting performances, etc. And of course it's not until you get to picture editorial and start editing all those scenes together that many of the pacing problems become apparent. The end result of the former approach may (or may not) look good but virtually always suffer from poor pacing, which is the kiss of death for general audiences!

I think your savior in this scene will be a nice rich soundscape.

Sound design can make a good scene better and can improve a poor scene but rarely (if ever) can sound design on it's own turn a poor scene into a good one. In other words, some good sound design will help the scene but not save it.

ADR is a bad move though, loses all the emotion in the scene...

The sync dialogue could probably be salvaged but will require quite a bit of specialist equipment and knowledge. ADR is likely the most practical solution but in this particular case it has been poorly performed and recorded and obviously has not been fully edited or processed yet. The simplest solution would be to record the ADR again.

G

 

[Metrostar]

Thanks again for the advice.

While I appreciate what you are saying, there are more problems than just editing. The main one being that I only had one actor in the whole film. Everyone else had never acted before. Other problems include a main 'actor' who wants nothing more to do with the film and wouldn't re-record ADR if I paid her.

But, instead of making excuses, I want to try and do the best that I have with the footage and audio that I have. I'm not kidding myself that I am going to make something great, but with a lot of patience and hard work, I know I can make something reasonably decent that I can show to everyone involved in the project and their co-workers, friends and families.

 

[sfoster]

Other problems include a main 'actor' who wants nothing more to do with the film and wouldn't re-record ADR if I paid her.

i had the same problem. solution is to replace their voice entirely. but mine was a short and it's more reasonable to entirely replace the voice.. for a feature that might be too much of an undertaking

 

[Metrostar]

i had the same problem. solution is to replace their voice entirely. but mine was a short and it's more reasonable to entirely replace the voice.. for a feature that might be too much of an undertaking

Way too much.