Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/1545125
52 C I N E M O N T A G E WOMD CONTINUED FROM PAGE 22 DIRECTORS' CONTINUED FROM PAGE 31 HIDDEN CUT CONTINUED FROM PAGE 31 it. I think it's a great way to develop your own creative instincts and figure out your personal style. Just as important (and sometimes even more so when starting out) is mastering the technical skills. Technology and workflows in our world move incredibly quickly, so staying curious and keeping up with indus- try trends will ultimately make you that "go-to" person on the team. Q: Was there ever a circumstance when you had to rely on the Guild for help or assistance? Throughout my career, I've reached out to the Guild a few times, primarily for insight and support when navigating rates or reviewing a new offer. Because agree- ments and pay scales can vary, I've found it incredibly helpful to lean on the field reps as a resource. It's the best way to ensure I always have the most accurate, up-to-date information before stepping into a new role. Q: Is there anything you'd like to say to your fellow Guild members, some words of encouragement? I'm truly grateful to have this career and be surrounded by such talented and kind people. Despite the evolving challenges our industry faces, I encourage us all to keep pushing forward. As editors and artists, we have the unique opportunity to touch peo- ple's lives through the stories we help tell. Please keep making the things you want to see in the world. Be kind, be curious, and try to have some fun while you're at it! ■ Compiled by David Bruskin. At the same time, we should not assume that unhurried pacing and deliberate ed- iting were the coin of the realm a quarter century ago. To the contrary, "fast cutting" was all the rage for a period in the late 1990s and early 2000s: Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" (1998), Baz Luhrmann's "Moulin Rouge!" (2001), and the James Bond movie "Quantum of Solace" (2008) all made use of breakneck editing that eschewed coherence for kinesis. This trend seems to have died off in much the manner that the jump-cutting that characterized so many late 1960s films, including Mike Nich- ols's "The Graduate" (1967), waned over time; it was once fashionable for old-school filmmakers (and attention-seeking critics) to decry "MTV editing" in feature films, but that complaint is seldom heard because such editing techniques are less prevalent. Other trends have emerged in their place: For most of movie history, a shot was only possible if the camera could execute it; per- haps a crane was necessary, or a Steadicam, or dolly tracks, but it had to be done on the set. In 2002, it was a novelty when David Fincher included seemingly "impossible shots" — the camera careening through a keyhole, for instance — in his thriller "Panic Room." Today, however, the distinction between production and post-production has blurred, and shots that are practically impossible — in the sense that the shot demands the camera do something it physi- cally cannot do — are in nearly every movie thanks to computer effects available in post; this is especially true in the science-fiction, fantasy, and comic book realms. This seems to be a mixed blessing: Movies can show us marvels heretofore unimagined, but there is a loss in knowing that what we are being shown was not achieved in reality but with the aid of a computer. Other changes in post-production are too obvious to mention and are unlikely to be perceived by audiences, including the rise of editing remotely and the decline in editors screening dailies in-person with di- rectors. But there is no question that many changes are felt — and possibly demanded — by viewers, who want long films that are nonetheless fast-paced, editing that deliv- ers rather than lingers, and visuals that, no matter how improbable or otherworldly, will transport them. Time will render its verdict on whether all of these changes have been to the artistic betterment of the movies, but as ever, post-production pro- fessionals are at the cutting edge. ■ continuous or discontinuous. His example, however, does suggest certain differences between the relative stability of an action sequence by John Ford, Howard Hawks, or even Alfred Hitchcock and the relative instability of a contemporary chase or action sequence, where the editing seems less sure of where we belong as spectators and winds up flinging us everywhere as a consequence. Just as the exalted crane s h o t s o f 1 9 5 0 s H o l l y w o o d e v e n t u a l l y became cannibalized in TV commercials that seemingly inspired in turn the swoop- ing aerial camera movements we see in pictures today, the fleet "montage sequenc- es" of yesteryear seem to have degenerated into the more eclectic chopped salads of contemporary pictures. There may even be a political difference b e twe e n t h e re l a t i ve d i s co n t i n u i t y o f 1960s and 1970s film narratives and their negativity toward the status quo (think of Richard Lester films, especially "Petulia" [1968]), and the relative continuity of more conservative movies today, even when they feature more jagged editing patterns. But to posit this is once again to overlook the different needs of separate pictures, e.g., the discontinuities of "Shutter Island" (2010), providing puzzles that are even- tually solved by clarifying them as insane distortions of reality, like the twisted sets of "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" (1920) 90 years earlier. My favorite documentary about film editing, Pedro Costa's "Where Does Your Hidden Smile Lie?" (2001), shows the Euro- pean couple Danièle Huillet and Jean-Marie Straub editing one of the versions of their 1999 black-and-white feature "Sicilia!", ar-