This kind of “nuts and bolts” approach to filmmaking I found very interesting. I read somewhere the director shoots about 6 - 10 hours of film footage and then the editor has to condense it into a two-hour film while retaining the plausibility and transparency of the plot. Also, it seems to me (and this is just my impression) that the Os…
This kind of “nuts and bolts” approach to filmmaking I found very interesting. I read somewhere the director shoots about 6 - 10 hours of film footage and then the editor has to condense it into a two-hour film while retaining the plausibility and transparency of the plot. Also, it seems to me (and this is just my impression) that the Oscar awards for editing often (usually?) go to the editor of fast-cut action films. Which reminds me of a book I read that asserted that compared to older classic films with an average shot of 10 seconds, current films average 4 seconds per shot which gives current films a faster-paced look, and often gives me a headache. I kind
of wished Sonny had reviewed this with John Magary to assess whether editors are responsible for this supposed trend
This kind of “nuts and bolts” approach to filmmaking I found very interesting. I read somewhere the director shoots about 6 - 10 hours of film footage and then the editor has to condense it into a two-hour film while retaining the plausibility and transparency of the plot. Also, it seems to me (and this is just my impression) that the Oscar awards for editing often (usually?) go to the editor of fast-cut action films. Which reminds me of a book I read that asserted that compared to older classic films with an average shot of 10 seconds, current films average 4 seconds per shot which gives current films a faster-paced look, and often gives me a headache. I kind
of wished Sonny had reviewed this with John Magary to assess whether editors are responsible for this supposed trend