Harbord, J 2015, ‘The Potency of Film Editing: Rose Hobart Stop Return’, Contemporary Theatre Review, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 68-72.
2 thoughts on “Harbord, J 2015, ‘The Potency of Film Editing: Rose Hobart Stop Return’, Contemporary Theatre Review, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 68-72.”
Harbord uses this article to rebuke the common misconception that editing comes after the creative process. She states that the assertion of editing purely being the process of the locking down and down of choices as flawed. To highlight the creative implications of editing she focuses upon the history of editing particularly looking at the early Soviet film editors. Harbord’s discussion uses Esfir Shub as an example of how these Soviet editors were tasked with recutting existing films to fashion new revolutionary works. Here she reveals how editing provides the potential of creating multiple stories and films from the same source material, suggesting that editing itself is a creative process, even alluding to it being an art form. Harbord then moves on to discuss one of the first experimental/art films Rose Hobart, which was cut entirely from existing stock, and how this revolutionised the art sphere.
In this article, Harbord gives a detailed history of the evolution of film editing, and gives her opinion on the definition of editing as it is today. She commends the “tactical and subversive” use of editing, but explains how this began to die out with the rise of the Hollywood studio system. During this time editing became “the art of the invisible”, which is used in an attempt to immerse the audience entirely within the world of the film, rather than allow the audience to appreciate the art of editing. She concludes, however, by suggesting that with the wealth of footage available on the internet, the subversive use of editing is strong again. This is highly relevant for an editor who may be interested in subverting classical conventions and ‘remixing” old footage to create something new entirely.
Harbord uses this article to rebuke the common misconception that editing comes after the creative process. She states that the assertion of editing purely being the process of the locking down and down of choices as flawed. To highlight the creative implications of editing she focuses upon the history of editing particularly looking at the early Soviet film editors. Harbord’s discussion uses Esfir Shub as an example of how these Soviet editors were tasked with recutting existing films to fashion new revolutionary works. Here she reveals how editing provides the potential of creating multiple stories and films from the same source material, suggesting that editing itself is a creative process, even alluding to it being an art form. Harbord then moves on to discuss one of the first experimental/art films Rose Hobart, which was cut entirely from existing stock, and how this revolutionised the art sphere.
In this article, Harbord gives a detailed history of the evolution of film editing, and gives her opinion on the definition of editing as it is today. She commends the “tactical and subversive” use of editing, but explains how this began to die out with the rise of the Hollywood studio system. During this time editing became “the art of the invisible”, which is used in an attempt to immerse the audience entirely within the world of the film, rather than allow the audience to appreciate the art of editing. She concludes, however, by suggesting that with the wealth of footage available on the internet, the subversive use of editing is strong again. This is highly relevant for an editor who may be interested in subverting classical conventions and ‘remixing” old footage to create something new entirely.