The Invisible Cut Read online

  Say the editor has to cut from a shot of an actor walking through a door to a subsequent shot showing the actor from the other side of that door. It may seem easy to cut around as the actor continues to come through, but it’s not, even for the most experienced editor. The editor may find out through trial and error that the cut appears smoother if it’s not a matched cut. It could be a “jump cut” (a section of film taken out of the beginning, middle, or end of a shot) where, for example, the swing of a door is visually discontinuous from one shot to the next. Whether or not the jump cut is smooth may depend on the way the audience’s eyes follow the motion and angle of the door, but the effect is also the result of what the audience is thinking and feeling.

  What if the actor opens the door, which reveals his long-lost love, and the next shot shows his reaction from the other side of the door? In this case, the most important factor would be the quality and timing of the actor’s reaction. Because the audience can only focus on one thing at a time, that moment is what they will zero in on. They won’t even notice if the door swings in a continuous arc from one shot to the next. That is why the editor must always cut for impact first. If the movie is working and the audience is involved, they won’t care about a mismatched door swing or any other detail. Probably only the director and editor will notice.

  PROBLEM SOLVING

  An editor faces a great many hurdles in creating those invisible cuts. So much goes wrong or has to be compromised during shooting that an editor must use sleight-of-hand to distract the audience from that reality.

  Let’s revisit the door-opening transition, but in this instance the actor is opening a front door to enter a house. The exterior of the house would probably have been shot at a totally different time and place from the interior of the house — the former on location, the latter on a sound stage. So what are the odds that the lighting, the speed of the actor’s walk, the mood of the actor, the angle of his arm as he turns the doorknob, or even the way he wears his shirt, will perfectly match from one day of shooting to another?

  Because the audience must not be aware of any of these mismatches, the editor must both finesse the cut and control the focus so that those inconsistencies are not noticed. There are also many other potential flaws in this seemingly simple transition. What if a camera move or stage move is not well executed, or the editor has to eliminate a poor performance or a flawed piece of dialogue? Actually, it’s highly unlikely that the movie will be shot and ultimately edited exactly as the screenplay was written. An editor might have to eliminate part of a scene, take it out entirely, or even change its order — all the while keeping the audience from being aware that he has performed such “surgery.”

  There are, in fact, some classic ways an editor uses sleight-of-hand to finesse these new and unplanned transitions:

  > “Wiping the frame”: cutting to a shot where something or someone moves across the screen, often in front of the subject, filling the screen.

  > Using a “cutaway,” which is also known as “cutting to the kitchen sink,” that is, cutting to something that is not related to the action within the frame but is somehow connected to the scene, such as a secondary action or observer.

  > Cutting to a close-up or an “insert,” which is a close shot of an object or specific piece of action. A close-up can even be “stolen” from another part of the movie for this purpose, because the background will be less noticeable and a subtle facial expression can always be reinterpreted in the new location. In general, inserts and close-ups are effective bridges that can be used to remove unnecessary or problematic footage, because they usually have a less obvious physical context and are more flexible in terms of where they can be placed.

  CHAPTER 5

  * * *

  CHEATING TIME

  The editor also uses sleight-of-hand to shorten or stretch out the duration of what is happening on screen. When he does it skillfully, it’s amazing how irrelevant real time can be.

  Here are some examples:

  CONDENSING TIME

  The audience is bored.

  Watching an event such as a baseball game may be interesting in real life but will slow a story down. The editor has to find the highlights of the game and bridge the time gaps by cutting to interesting shots of the crowd, the coach, the scoreboard, etc. The audience will accept the time jumps gratefully.

  The audience is anxious to discover something.

  If an actor sees something significant off screen — an envelope containing crucial information, for example — the editor may want to cut to what the actor is looking at and hold on that shot until the man enters the frame to retrieve it. This shortening of time not only puts emphasis on what’s important, but also satisfies the audience’s curiosity more quickly than staying with the actor’s actual movements.

  The audience knows what’s going to happen.

  An example would be an actor running up the stairs. If the editor changes angles just when the actor reaches the stairs, he can eliminate some of the bottom steps, because the audience already knows where the actor is going.

  EXTENDING TIME

  The audience wants to milk the suspense.

  Say a bomb is about to go off. The editor extends the time and creates tension by cutting back and forth. That is, he “cross-cuts” or “inter-cuts” between the main elements of a scene to establish the parallel action and eventually build to a climax. In this case the elements are the ticking bomb and the main characters trying to escape or defuse it. The editor can also cut to other elements, such as additional threats or hurdles that heighten the drama. With suspenseful and escalating cross-cutting, a bomb that is set to go off in thirty seconds can end up taking two minutes of movie time and no one will blink! The audience will actually appreciate that the editor has thrown real-time logic out the window, because they’re not only enjoying the thrill ride, they’re also trying to buy time for the characters they’re emotionally invested in.

  The audience needs more information.

  Say there’s a sign above the door that the audience should read. If the first shot shows the actor coming out of the door but does not show the sign clearly, the editor may repeat part of the actor’s exit in the more distant shot.

  CHAPTER 6

  * * *

  CHEATING MOVES

  A cut can seem invisible when an editor manipulates time. He can also create a seamless transition by making an “action cut,” using body motion as a bridge when cutting to a change in camera angles. Here are two classic examples:

  STANDING UP

  An editor may have to cut from a close shot of an actor, to show him standing up in a more distant shot. Generally he will cut right after the actor shows the intention to stand. This is because the audience will lose interest once the actor’s face begins to leave the frame.

  SITTING DOWN

  What holds true of the previous cut is also the case here — in reverse. That is, when an actor is shown from a distance, first standing and then starting to sit down, the editor should try not to interrupt the flow of movement. He will usually want to cut to the closer shot slightly ahead of the completed action, just as the actor’s butt touches the seat of the chair. Even if the actor is sitting behind a desk or something else that obscures him, the editor can still time the shot by getting a feel of the actor’s rhythm. If the actor is using a prop (for example, if he’s drinking or smoking in the close-up), then the editor might delay cutting until the hand just enters the frame.

  Sometimes these rules do not apply. For instance, the editor may cut at the peak of that sitting or standing motion, even if it involves using an awkward shot.

  ENTERING AND EXITING

  Entrance/exit cuts are other ways an editor can use body motion to create an invisible cut. If, for example, an actor walks from the left side of the screen across to the right side, the audience will focus on his face, especially his eyes. As he keeps walking and his face starts to leave the right edge of the frame, the audience’s
eyes will start to swing to the center. This is because the audience is already anticipating the next shot. When the editor cuts and the actor enters from the left edge of the frame, they will look to the left and not notice the cut; the action will seem continuous and the cut invisible.

  As a result, the rule of thumb for when an actor exits, say, from the right side, is that in the next shot he will enter from the opposite side, in this case from the left. Here are the exceptions when an actor would exit and enter again from the same side of the screen:

  > The actor is shot from front to back and in the next shot from back to front or vice versa.

  > The actor changes direction within the shot and then exits from the same side as he entered.

  > The actor suggests a change in direction, and the editor cuts to something else before the actor reenters the frame.

  When an actor exits, the editor should usually try to avoid completely emptying the frame because that dead visual time kills the momentum. Also, when matching the walking action from one shot to the next, the editor should cut out at the peak of the actor’s energy, which is often the moment his foot touches the ground. When the actor reenters the frame, editors often like to have the same foot come down to the ground, but the choice ultimately depends on what feels natural, both visually and dramatically.

  CHAPTER 7

  * * *

  KNOWING THE EYE

  Like the magician, an editor has to trick the audience into seeing only what he wants them to see, while he sets up the effect he wants. He can only pull this off if he understands how the audience’s eyes react to what they see on screen. This includes knowing the human eye’s limitations: the fact that it can absorb only so much of a film frame.

  HOW THE EYE FOCUSES

  In general, the editor understands that the eye searches for the greatest intensity within the frame, whether it be motion or emotion. The eye will naturally focus on the center and foreground of the frame unless:

  > The eye was focused somewhere else in the previous shot.

  > There’s movement away from the center and/or foreground, particularly toward the horizon.

  > An actor is in dramatic close-up or just shows strong emotion, and then the focus will be on his eyes, wherever they are within the frame.

  > The eye is pulled to a point somewhere else within the frame, because a person or object is much denser, brighter, bigger, or in greater focus.

  HOW THE EYE BLINKS

  There’s another subtle window of opportunity for the editor to distract his audience: when there’s a cut and a new image appears on the screen and the eye needs time to adjust and refocus. (This is similar to what happens when you read, and your eyes move from word to word or across the page.) That fuzziness in between cuts lasts three to five frames, or about one-fifth of a second, since there are twenty-four frames per second.

  Interestingly enough, the amount of time it takes for the eye to adjust is also about the same as the time it takes for someone to blink. That is why a sharp sound, which usually makes the eye blink, can also smooth over a bad match or transition or just distract the audience. A prime example is the faked slap. The editor can cut out of a shot just as the actor starts to slap someone or has even barely completed the slap. He can then cut to the next shot showing that the second actor has already been slapped. If the editor plays the sound of the slap very close to the cut, the audience will blink and think they’ve seen the slap even though they actually haven’t.

  Because the eye cannot retain an image that lasts less than three frames, that number of frames also becomes the magic number to create a subliminal effect. Although the eye doesn’t see it clearly, the effect does register in the mind’s eye.

  HOW THE EYE REACTS TO MOTION

  The closeness of an image makes it appear to move faster because the information comes quickly and is simpler to absorb. The psychological intensity of a closer shot also makes the screen time seem shorter. Movement coming directly at the screen appears to be faster as well, since it has a more dramatic, possibly even threatening impact than horizontal movement or movement away from the screen. Diagonal movement has its own special effect, since it leads the eye specifically to whatever edge and/or corner of the frame it eventually moves out of — and the eye will anticipate the next shot by focusing on the opposite edge or corner.

  CHAPTER 8

  * * *

  KNOWING THE CAMERA

  COVERING THE SCENE

  An editor has to rely on the director and cinematographer to shoot the right coverage for a scene — that is, all the necessary camera setups and angles — but then it’s up to the editor to create an involving, understandable narrative with the footage he’s given. A scene may start with an all-inclusive master shot or a close-up and usually, as the scene builds, it may be broken up into closer angles. But there are no hard-and-fast rules. Whatever the choices are, the editor has to understand the impact of those different angles, as well as camera moves and lenses, so he can use the shots in the most effective way.

  The editor also has to adjust to whatever approach the director uses to cover a scene. For example, if the director uses a locked-down camera with the whole scene played out in one shot, the editor will have a very narrow choice of options. The editor will also be somewhat limited if the director decides to play the scenes out in long, elaborate shots and resist cutting whenever possible, which may be the case in a crucial dialogue scene. On the other hand, the director may also use the opposite approach and shoot a lot of short, varied angles, especially if he wants to create a dizzying, exciting action scene.

  In terms of planning, he may “camera cut” (preconceive the exact choice and sequence of shots). This may be the case if the scene is logistically very complicated and needs a “storyboard” (shots sketched in sequence as a blueprint for coverage). A director might also lean toward the camera-cutting approach if he has an especially good grasp of the mechanics of camera coverage and editing, and/or has severe time and budget constraints. But if a director chooses to pre-plan every shot — giving the editor virtually no options or leftover film and himself no opportunity for a second guess in the cutting room — he’s probably being foolish. (Unless he’s an Alfred Hitchcock, whose uncanny way of working I will discuss later.)

  KNOWING “THE LINE”

  One of the editor’s key responsibilities is to keep the audience from getting confused, and that means making sure they always know where the actors are in relation to each other. He has to make sure that the film he cuts together honors what’s called the “stage line.” This is an imaginary line that cuts through the middle of a shot, and the camera must stay on one side of that line, within that 180-degree space. If the camera crosses it, the viewpoint will be reversed and the audience will become disoriented.

  To illustrate: a shot establishes a boy and girl seated across from each other. The stage line cuts through the middle of the table and both of the actors. If the camera shoots a close-up of the boy, then mistakenly crosses the line when it shoots the girl, and then those two shots are cut together, the two actors will be looking in the same direction and not at each other. In Figure 1 the boy and girl are actually looking at each other, which is what the camera would see if camera angles 1 and 2 or 3 and 4 were cut together. But if camera angles 1 and 4 were cut together, the boy and girl would both appear to be looking to the right, and from angles 2 to 3 to the left, not at one another. What this classic example shows is that actual reality has no bearing on screen reality.

  Inevitably, it can get much more complicated than that. For instance, if there were three people sitting around a table, three stage lines would run through each pair of actors. If the only film available to the editor were single shots of each of the actors, the best he could hope for would be that two of the three pairs of actors would be looking in the direction they should, which is the case in Figure 2. That is, two of three lines would not be crossed if he cut from cameras 1 to 2 or 2 to 3. All the other angle
combinations would cross more lines and at best only one pair of actors would be looking in the correct direction.

  Ideally the editor would not get stuck with angles he couldn’t use, but he has to recognize such mistakes and avoid footage that will disorient his audience. In reality, a smart director would not corner himself into these kinds of problematic setups, where he would be dodging every line. He would do this by moving actors, moving the camera, and grouping actors in various ways. Close-ups can also be used as a bridge for the editor to wipe the stage line slate clean, since they often don’t have a specific geography of their own.