Dmytryk, E. 1984 On Film Editing, Focal Press, MA USA
4 thoughts on “Dmytryk, E. 1984 On Film Editing, Focal Press, MA USA”
This is a very useful book for people studying film editing. The author as a filmmaker concludes some of most significant things you should be aware as an editor according to his own experience. The most obvious feature of this book is it emphasizes the real experience of film editing and focuses on the practical techniques that commonly used by editors. They are all detailed and helpful. For example, the importance of smooth editing can be related to continuous editing that suggests a good film should not let the audiences feel conscious of the editing at all. Besides, things like the principles make the action cuts work, how to handle a dialogue, is dissolve suitable to use under certain circumstances and so on are well explained with examples. In sum, this is a very practical and first-hand experience source for editor to study.
In this text, Dmytryk breaks montage down into two categorical types; European and Hollywood. He describes European montage as being where the story, situation and character is effectively developed through strategically edited straight cuts whereas Hollywood montage is almost always used as a transition. While Dmytryk has an interesting insight to montage types, he seems to be quite anti-Hollywood. His tone hints at being unhappy with Hollywood montage’s typical musical underscores and even refers to Hollywood montage as being a “…more complicated, and often more pretentious, version of a straight dissolve.” (pg. 135) Such a biased view on the topic opens opportunity to research a different perspective.
Dmytryk gives an interesting insight into the mind of an experienced filmmaker, and puts forward various opinions on the best, most effective way to edit a film. He argues that the “ideal” way to edit a film is for the cutting to be completely seamless, which will allow for the audience to be completely immersed in the world of the film. He believes that once the audience becomes conscious of the editing style through an unusual or clumsy cut, the immersion is compromised. He goes on to state that the editor must always have a reason for every cut and that if the editor is unsure of when to cut, “cut long rather than short”. While Dmytryk puts forward a number of useful and logical ideas for cutting, his arguments seem at times to be limited to the creation of a particular kind of film; one that adheres to the conventions of modern filmmaking. In terms of the potential subversion of these conventions, Dmytryk does not offer much. Having said this, his book still contains plenty of interesting and useful information.
Dymytryc’s writing here resembles something like an editing manual, consisting of rules on how to edit, what to violations to avoid, tips on how to physically cut tangible reels of film, and general things to consider during the editing process. His chief idea is that as long as a shot has delivered it’s intended message, regardless of how long or short it spans, it has completed its duty and a cut is in order. Cuts must be motivated by this reasoning, and no other. Dmytryk also advocates cutting on action, and therefore honouring continuity, as much as possible to make the edit more “smooth” and “invisible” to the viewer. This demonstrates his belief that editing should be an unnoticeable aspect to the moving image, not something that should be flaunted and draw attention to the film as a construction. When an audience experiences a film as a whole, “unbroken” movement, that is evidence of a good editor. Even so, if awkward cuts are necessary for the narrative or drama playing out, there is more worth in making that cut versus leaving it out. He reassures that most audiences are not sensitive enough to notice anyway.
Dmytrk’s writing carries an authoritative air which tends to restrict the audience (editors) into one way of perceiving and executing post-production. Rather than ideas and theories on how to edit, he dictates rules which he believes must be followed. Dmytryk prefers to produce realism in a more linear and continuous way and this is in direct opposition to Eisenstein who advocates conflicting images to provoke audience intellect.
This is a very useful book for people studying film editing. The author as a filmmaker concludes some of most significant things you should be aware as an editor according to his own experience. The most obvious feature of this book is it emphasizes the real experience of film editing and focuses on the practical techniques that commonly used by editors. They are all detailed and helpful. For example, the importance of smooth editing can be related to continuous editing that suggests a good film should not let the audiences feel conscious of the editing at all. Besides, things like the principles make the action cuts work, how to handle a dialogue, is dissolve suitable to use under certain circumstances and so on are well explained with examples. In sum, this is a very practical and first-hand experience source for editor to study.
In this text, Dmytryk breaks montage down into two categorical types; European and Hollywood. He describes European montage as being where the story, situation and character is effectively developed through strategically edited straight cuts whereas Hollywood montage is almost always used as a transition. While Dmytryk has an interesting insight to montage types, he seems to be quite anti-Hollywood. His tone hints at being unhappy with Hollywood montage’s typical musical underscores and even refers to Hollywood montage as being a “…more complicated, and often more pretentious, version of a straight dissolve.” (pg. 135) Such a biased view on the topic opens opportunity to research a different perspective.
Dmytryk gives an interesting insight into the mind of an experienced filmmaker, and puts forward various opinions on the best, most effective way to edit a film. He argues that the “ideal” way to edit a film is for the cutting to be completely seamless, which will allow for the audience to be completely immersed in the world of the film. He believes that once the audience becomes conscious of the editing style through an unusual or clumsy cut, the immersion is compromised. He goes on to state that the editor must always have a reason for every cut and that if the editor is unsure of when to cut, “cut long rather than short”. While Dmytryk puts forward a number of useful and logical ideas for cutting, his arguments seem at times to be limited to the creation of a particular kind of film; one that adheres to the conventions of modern filmmaking. In terms of the potential subversion of these conventions, Dmytryk does not offer much. Having said this, his book still contains plenty of interesting and useful information.
Dymytryc’s writing here resembles something like an editing manual, consisting of rules on how to edit, what to violations to avoid, tips on how to physically cut tangible reels of film, and general things to consider during the editing process. His chief idea is that as long as a shot has delivered it’s intended message, regardless of how long or short it spans, it has completed its duty and a cut is in order. Cuts must be motivated by this reasoning, and no other. Dmytryk also advocates cutting on action, and therefore honouring continuity, as much as possible to make the edit more “smooth” and “invisible” to the viewer. This demonstrates his belief that editing should be an unnoticeable aspect to the moving image, not something that should be flaunted and draw attention to the film as a construction. When an audience experiences a film as a whole, “unbroken” movement, that is evidence of a good editor. Even so, if awkward cuts are necessary for the narrative or drama playing out, there is more worth in making that cut versus leaving it out. He reassures that most audiences are not sensitive enough to notice anyway.
Dmytrk’s writing carries an authoritative air which tends to restrict the audience (editors) into one way of perceiving and executing post-production. Rather than ideas and theories on how to edit, he dictates rules which he believes must be followed. Dmytryk prefers to produce realism in a more linear and continuous way and this is in direct opposition to Eisenstein who advocates conflicting images to provoke audience intellect.