The French architect, Le Corbusier, says, "Construction is about putting walls together while engineering is about emotional interaction. Thus, there is no architecture without construction, but there is construction without engineering."
|Editing in commercials doesn't introduce a certain product, but it creates a desire to own it. This style of editing creates a product to the customer as well as a customer to the product|
Cinema is a combination of engineering and construction. Takes act like bricks and engineering is about placing a take in a certain space for a specific end. The cohesion of the takes in an orchestrated way gives the film a distinguished artistic frame.
Cinema is the art of present time; thus, editing evokes time and manipulates its particles in a way times are seen equal. Is editing about manipulating time and extending or shortening its duration?
A take has a psychological time, for hours or days, which was melted in its own timeframe. For instance, it is enough to show an alarm waking up a worker. Then we combine another take depicting a bell declaring the end of a work day at a factory to automatically understand that he has spent a whole day at work including meals, breaks, and transportation. If we repeat this take twice, it will give a different idea about his hatred to work.
|Le Corbusier: Construction is about putting walls together while engineering is about emotional interaction (A.P)|
Cinema doesn't record the world events to preserve a copy of it. Rather, it borrows some tools from this world to relate a certain event. Editing is an orchestrated texture that has threads to hold the viewer and go into their deep mental state.
It is quite essential to understand the early editing experience in cinema. However, it is not our subject in this stand but we still need to test the philosophical and psychological aspects of these notions and theories.
If the principles of film editing are of Soviet origin, is it possible to apply them on the Arab cinema that has ideologies contrary to those of the Bolshevik Revolution?
Editing is not a mere process of selecting takes on the basis of beauty or scarcity. Rather, it is the inner propeller of the cinema narrative through which pace has impact on us. Therefore, we need to fully dismantle this process and focus on the things that lead us to the essence of the film.
Thus, does film editing help viewers get the ideas within a film alone or does it spoon- feed them those ideas?
Talk and image
Orson Welles says the most important issue in cinema is what we say rather than what we display, as if he differentiated between the work and its intention, or pointing to the overt and covert structure in the film. For instance, editing in commercials doesn't introduce a certain product, but it creates a desire to own it. This style of editing creates a product to the customer as well as a customer to the product at the same time. By the same token, does the importance of our discourse come from the word choices we make, or are our ends enough to disclose the message intended in our discourse? Hence, editing is the spirit of the approach and the backbone that makes the film stand alone.
Is editing a smart way by which directors bypass censorship or does censorship impose a model that directors use to avoid taboos?
The duration and the frame of a take are usually preselected. Therefore, the cameraman who has the basics of editing ensures to take editing-friendly takes. So would an editor be able to save a badly shot film or vice versa?
Rhythm in editing
Before discussing rhythm in the art of editing, it is important to assert on the importance of the duration of the take. In the early days of cinema, this was subject to the length of the tape within the camera.
If editing was about melting motion and manipulating time, would it be able to take us to the essence of a concept through conventions sourced from the grammar of the Arabic language?
Is it true to say that editing is the art of metaphor and finding a cinematic rhythm based on the Arabic poetry meters and other prose styles is a too soon objective to achieve?
|Godard says, "Cinema has overt and covert aspects. If you just filmed the overt aspect, TV too is good at this." I believe he talks about the mental image formed from the clash of two takes|
Godard says, "Cinema has overt and covert aspects. If you just filmed the overt aspect, TV too is good at this." I believe he talks about the mental image formed from the clash of two takes.
A take of bread followed by a pale face suggests hunger and poverty, a take of children in worn out clothes followed barbwires suggests a detention center or prison, and a take of a fluttering flag followed by a crowd suggests patriotism. Thus, hunger, poverty, prison, and home country are all intangible mental images and are not ones shot by a camera.
Is rhythm the synchrony of takes with a musical tone or the musical note should be written according to the displayed takes? Is music in films used as an added ornament to takes or as a mask to hide the bad takes? On the other hand, music can be used as a feature factor such as its usage in the Once Upon a Time in the West by Sergio Leone. In that film, the director linked between the tones of a flute with the protagonist. Viewers would recall the face of the protagonist once they hear the music without having the protagonist on screen. The director repeated that many times until retrieving pictures became so fast in service of an easy and readable dramatic plot.
Rhythm is something available even in soccer or boxing. The number of fast takes isn't enough to make us worried, and takes aren't enough to give us tranquility.
Hitchcock and Rope
Rhythm in European classic music is often free of drums. The Four Seasons musical notes of Vivaldi are an important model for the link between the aspects of a note and the precise suggestion of an individual instrument and the relationship it has with other instruments.
Rope for Hitchcock is an exceptional model for being a filmed by one take but it was not shot from one angle and one frame. Rather, the camera continuously moved from one actor to another is seen as a change of the take without cutting the tape from point A and B.
Rope is a film that tricks the viewer by making them a participating witness as the use of camera in this way makes it a personalized camera acting as our personal look.
The duration of a take imposes a moral depth that changes the duration of the next take even if its real time is less or more than the previous one.
When you are before an oil paint, it is you who decides the duration of the view. Yet, in cinema, the director and editor impose the duration of view on viewers.
For example, the red color is ultimately red, but does the degree of redness decrease or increase once contrasted with sky-blue, grey, or silver colors? Does your face look the same when hair is combed differently?
Koulechov's attempt was carried out on an actor who was asked not to perform any role and remain neutral; his role looked amazing when the take of his face was added to takes of a beautiful woman, a child, and a dinner table.
The viewer was aware of the notions of love, grief, and hunger despite the actor stood still without any facial expression. Then the attempt was further developed by filming a soldier shooting an automatic rifle, and the subsequent takes had the same rhythm of the fired bullets. The viewer was deluded to listen to the sound of the rifle despite cinema was silent back then.
Editing creates a rhythm to the film giving it secret engineering threads, it also makes inaudible sounds. It is the construction of ideas and the romance that address the heart directly. In short, editing is a metaphor, predicate, unrestricted object, melody, and syntax of the director's imagination and sensitivity.