LoBrutto, Vincent. “”Invisible” or “Visible” Editing: The Development of Editorial Styles and Strategies.” Cineaste 34.2 (2009): 43-47,11. Web.
2 thoughts on “LoBrutto, Vincent. “”Invisible” or “Visible” Editing: The Development of Editorial Styles and Strategies.” Cineaste 34.2 (2009): 43-47,11. Web.”
In this text, LoBrutto proposes that the “…art and craft of editing is comprised of two overarching approaches-invisible and visible editing.”
He takes a close look at invisible editing, breaking down scenes from In All That Jazz (1979) and Spartacus (1960) frame by frame, to investigate what it is that made the seamless/invisible editing in these films successful. LoBrutto, however, ensures to explore several different types of invisible editing, noting the difference between the separate films he is exploring and the intended effect: whether that be added drama and intensity, smooth and seamlessness, or symbolic meanings. LoBrutto goes on to compare scenes that highlight ‘visible’ editing, emphasising the power and value in this style also.
This article proves helpful in it’s extremely detailed break down and descriptions of specific scenes and the editing style that is present, whilst also providing contextual and historical evidence of the reasoning for certain editing decisions.
In the argument about who invented film editing, I’m going to lend my vote to the Russian side. Not only for their innovation but because Americans tend to claim the invention of anything they can get their hands on and sometimes you just got to hand it over.
This piece appears to argue that in order to make your cuts invisible you must follow all the principles of continuity editing. I would say that this is the case but that it goes further than that and becomes, these days at least, about following established conventions of cinema. This can easily be explained by the “coconut effect”. Before modern sound technology, foley artists dubbed the sound of horse’s hooves as clapping coconuts. Audiences are now to conditioned to hearing this that they just expect to hear that distinct sound instead of real horse hooves. This translates straight from sound to visuals, in that audiences expect shots to appear in a particular format and obey certain principles. Thus there is a two-way communication between audience and editor.
In this text, LoBrutto proposes that the “…art and craft of editing is comprised of two overarching approaches-invisible and visible editing.”
He takes a close look at invisible editing, breaking down scenes from In All That Jazz (1979) and Spartacus (1960) frame by frame, to investigate what it is that made the seamless/invisible editing in these films successful. LoBrutto, however, ensures to explore several different types of invisible editing, noting the difference between the separate films he is exploring and the intended effect: whether that be added drama and intensity, smooth and seamlessness, or symbolic meanings. LoBrutto goes on to compare scenes that highlight ‘visible’ editing, emphasising the power and value in this style also.
This article proves helpful in it’s extremely detailed break down and descriptions of specific scenes and the editing style that is present, whilst also providing contextual and historical evidence of the reasoning for certain editing decisions.
In the argument about who invented film editing, I’m going to lend my vote to the Russian side. Not only for their innovation but because Americans tend to claim the invention of anything they can get their hands on and sometimes you just got to hand it over.
This piece appears to argue that in order to make your cuts invisible you must follow all the principles of continuity editing. I would say that this is the case but that it goes further than that and becomes, these days at least, about following established conventions of cinema. This can easily be explained by the “coconut effect”. Before modern sound technology, foley artists dubbed the sound of horse’s hooves as clapping coconuts. Audiences are now to conditioned to hearing this that they just expect to hear that distinct sound instead of real horse hooves. This translates straight from sound to visuals, in that audiences expect shots to appear in a particular format and obey certain principles. Thus there is a two-way communication between audience and editor.