Before the fi nal continuity of a sequence is arrived at, the editor normally takes his material through two dis-tinct stages. First, he assembles a rough cut in which the order of shots makes fi lm sense and the transitions are mechanically smooth. Second, he approaches the material again to refi ne the continuity of the rough cut in such a way that it becomes dramatically as well as physically appropriate. Some writers have divided these two func-tions, calling the fi rst cutting and the second editing , but the terms are, in common usage, applied interchangeably so that the distinction is likely to confuse rather than to clarify the issue. Nevertheless, we will fi nd it convenient to consider the two phases of the work separately because they present somewhat different problems.
The main purpose of assembling a rough cut is to work out a continuity which will be understandable and smooth. We have used the word smooth as applied to a cut several times and it is now time to say a little more about it. Making a smooth cut means joining two shots in such a way that the transition does not create a noticeable jerk and the spectator’s illusion of seeing a continuous piece of action is not interrupted. If, to take an absurdly simple example, we cut from a long shot of an actor standing by a mantelpiece straight to a medium shot of the same actor reclining in an arm-chair, the transition will obviously be unacceptable:
a spectator seeing it will immediately become aware that he is not viewing a continuous piece of action and the illusion will be broken.
This simple instance shows that the process of smooth cutting is subject to certain mechanical principles.
These we shall attempt to state below. But as will be seen later, all the “ rules ” of smooth cutting are subject to the much wider discipline of the dramatic , as opposed to the mechanical demands of the continuity, so that they are not to be taken as binding or universally valid.
Matching Consecutive Actions
The most elementary requirement of a smooth continuity is that the actions of two consecutive shots of a single scene should match. While the fi lm is still on the fl oor, the director — aided by the continuity girl — sees to it that if a scene is shot from more than one angle, the background and positions of the players remain the same in each take. Clearly, if a long shot of a room showed a fi re burning in a hearth, and the following mid-shot revealed the grate empty, then a cut from the one to the other would create a false impression. Keeping the set background constant throughout a series of shots is, however, a comparatively simple matter.
A more diffi cult aspect of the same problem is to keep the action and movement shown in consecutive shots accurately continuous. If an actor starts a movement — say he is halfway through opening a door — in one shot, then that movement must be continued in the next from the precise moment it was left. If the editor cuts the two strips of fi lm together in such a way that a part of the action is duplicated in the two shots the effect will appear unnatural. Equally, if he skips a piece of action — say he cuts from the shot where the door is half open to another where it is already closed — there will be a noticeable jump in the continuity and the cut will not be smooth.
The matching of actions in two consecutive shots is a comparatively simple matter for the experienced edi-tor, and even for the novice it is only a question of experimenting until a satisfactory cutting point is reached.
More diffi cult, and also more open to opinion, is the problem of where in the course of a particular piece of movement the cut should be made.
Take an example. A man is sitting at a table on which stands a glass of wine. He leans forward, picks up the glass with his right hand, brings it to his lips and drinks. Let us assume — as shown in Figure 1 — that this simple scene has been covered from three different angles and consider the various ways in which the editor could cut from one to another.
If the intention is to cut from long to medium shot, the editor could do one of two things. He could let the action start in long shot, and then at some point during the downward (or upward) movement of the man’s arm cut to the matching mid-shot. Alternatively, he could wait for the point when the hand grasps the glass, and time the cut in such a way that the whole of the upward movement appears in the second shot. Without being dogmatic about the point, we can say that it is normally preferable to use the second method. By show-ing one specifi c movement in long shot and the other in mid-shot, the cut does not interrupt a continuous
Figure 1 The three main angles: close-up, medium shot and long shot. How to cut from one to another is discussed in the text.
fl owing movement, but is, so to speak, punctuating the whole action at the moment of rest. The impression created is that two distinct phases of the movement are seen in two distinct ways: the fl ow of movement is not interrupted until it has of its own accord momentarily come to a stop.
An alternative moment of rest occurs when the actor is just about to start his movement, and this pro-vides a third and possibly the best cutting point. Just before the actor starts his forward movement, his facial expression — a glance downward, possibly — will register his intention. If the cut is made precisely at this point — i.e., just before the hand begins to move — it will be smooth, because it will coincide with the moment of change from rest to activity. Before the cut, the actor will be sitting still: then, as he registers his intention of moving his hand, the spectator will anticipate what is about to happen and will be ready to see the effect of the resolution in another shot.
This last timing of the cut is particularly apt in the case where the transition is to be from close-up to mid-shot.
At the moment the actor begins his forward movement, the spectator will want to see the effect and will there-fore welcome the cut from close to medium shot. The cut will, in fact, merely be altering the size of the image in such a way that the entire action of picking up the glass (which the close-up cannot show) becomes visible.
If the reverse is required, that is to say if a cut from mid-shot to close-up is needed, then there is again a good case for cutting during a movement. Most of the action could be shown in the medium shot and the cut to the close-up delayed until the point in the man’s upward movement at which the hand is just entering frame.
In such a case, the editor must, of course, match the action of the two shots. The cut will be effective because it will, so to speak, be cueing the hand into the close-up. There is a pictorial reason for the cut because it comes at the precise moment at which the close-up begins to contain all the signifi cant action.
Thus it appears that a cut which is made on the end or beginning of a movement, or a cut which is neces-sary to accommodate a piece of action not visible in the previous set-up, is usually preferable to a cut which fortuitously interrupts a continuous movement. But it must be emphatically stressed that this is not always so.
We are here only concerned with describing the various mechanical possibilities without, for the moment, considering which is dramatically most apt.
Extent of Change in Image Size and Angle
Figure 2 shows a possible progression from a full shot to two alternative closer shots. It will be seen that the difference in size between a and b is very small, and that the pictorial composition of the two shots is almost the same. As a result a cut from a to b will be unsatisfactory. The spectator will witness only a very slight change in the image, and will be momentarily irritated by what will appear to him as a small but clearly perceptible shift. There will be insuffi cient contrast between the succeeding images to make the transition smooth. A cut from a to c , on the other hand, makes a quite distinct contrast: the composition of the two pic-tures is entirely different and there is no longer any question of a small shift in cutting from one to the other.
The cut will therefore be smooth.
A similar example is provided by Figure 3 . Here again, the cut from a to b brings about too small a change in image size to make it mechanically satisfactory; if a cut to a closer shot is desired, then it must be to a consider-ably closer image, such as is illustrated in c.
Figure 2 There is insuffi cient contrast between a and b to make a smooth cut; a cut from a to c makes a distinct contrast.
Figure 3 A cut from a to b has too small a change in image size; the cut needs to be to a considerably closer image as in c .
Apart from this mechanical reason, there is another consideration which in both cases makes the cut from a to b unacceptable. Every cut — this much we can insist on — should make a point. There must be a reason for transferring the spectator’s attention from one image to another. In the case of cutting from a to b the change is so small that the dramatic point the editor is trying to make is, apparently, not really worth making. No appreciable dramatic purpose can be served by cutting from a full shot ( Figure 2a ) to a slightly closer image which is cut off at ankle level ( Figure 2b ). The spectator will sense that nothing signifi cant is being said by the cut and will therefore not accept it without irritation.
What is true of changes in image size is equally true of changes of angle permissible between two consecu-tive shots. Figure 4 shows a plan of camera set-ups in a transition from medium to close shot. In the diagram, a character stands facing the camera, in front of a rigid object on the set, say a standard lamp. From the fi rst camera set-up we are asked to cut to a close-up. A cut from I to IIa brings on the screen a close-up in which the lamp is still in the same position relative to the character as it was in the medium shot. The cut is therefore acceptable because it is showing the same picture as its predecessor, only closer to. If, on the other hand, the close shot is taken from the camera position IIb , where the angle of shooting has been slightly changed, the resulting image will be as shown in the diagram: the standard lamp is now in a different position relative to the actor. As a result, the spectator will get the impression that the lamp has suddenly and inexplicably shifted
Figure 4 IIa faces in the same direction as I. IIb makes a slight change. The same angle or a marked change is to be preferred.
to the left. The position of the actor’s head is in both cases in the centre of the frame, but the background in IIb seems to have moved. (In practice, the effect might be cheated by moving the lamp.) Thus the spectator will momentarily become aware of the change and the cut will not be smooth.
If the editor wants, for some reason, to cut to a close shot which is taken from a different angle, then the angle change must be made considerably more marked. A position where the camera has been moved through 90 degrees will produce an image entirely different from the mid-shot and will therefore not create momen-tary confusion. The actor’s face will be clearly seen in profi le instead of head-on, and the spectator will there-fore not expect to see the background in the same position relative to the head.
Preserving a Sense of Direction
In discussing the battle scenes from Birth of a Nation , we noticed that Griffi th took the greatest care to show each opposing side always facing in a fi xed direction. By doing so he was able to preserve a lucid continuity because the spectator came to recognise that one side was advancing from left to right, the other fi ring from right to left. Wherever two opposing forces are shown on the screen and a sense of contact between them is to be established, then this clear directional continuity must be preserved. We have already seen in the extracts analysed in the previous section how close shots of two characters in dialogue scenes are made alternately to face left and right (e.g., 17 and 18 in the extract from The Passionate Friends on p. 74 and the whole series of alternating close shots in the montage passage from Citizen Kane , on p. 89).
In practice, the problem of making adjacent close shots face in opposite directions is illustrated by Figure 5 . Shot I establishes that the characters A and B are facing each other. Where two close shots, each taken over the opposing character’s shoulder, are desired, the question of where to place the camera arises. If camera set-up IIa is used, B will still be facing left to right as he was in the medium shot. The cut will therefore be clear.
If IIb is used, the close shot will show B facing from right to left. This will not make a clear transition, because the direction of the actor’s glance will have been reversed. Similarly, the same argument applies to the close-up of A : this must be taken from IIIa as shown in the diagram. A clear practical example of this procedure is provided by the sequence of three shots from Topper Returns quoted on p. 67. Here the two close shots are taken from so close that the opposing actor’s shoulder is not visible, but it will be seen that each actor is fac-ing in the same direction in the close shots and the medium shot.
The necessity for preserving a clear sense of direction is not limited merely to the placing of the camera.
Where actors move in and out of frame, a similar consistency in the direction of their movements must be preserved. Figure 6 shows an example. If the actor walks out of frame to the right, it will be perfectly accept-able if he enters the next shot from the left: i.e., if we cut from I to IIa . On the other hand, to cut to IIb would not be acceptable because it would imply that the actor instantaneously and without reason turned through 180 degrees. If, owing to the demands of the story, it is desired that the actor should turn around in the course of his walk, then the moment at which he turns must be shown (or in some way implied). Figure 7 illustrates the point. In a he is walking from left to right and out of frame; in b we see that he turns back; and in c we are therefore prepared to see him re-enter frame from the right. To leave shot b out, however, would confuse the spectator because he would not expect to see the action travelling right to left, and would be sur-prised to see the actor re-enter from the right-hand side.
Figure 5 Cuts from I to IIa and from I to IIIa are clear; the cut from I to IIb would not be clear.
Figure 6 A cut from I to IIa maintains the same direction of view; a cut from I to IIb reverses it and is confusing.
All these simple rules are to be taken with a certain amount of caution. In the normal way, it is almost cer-tainly better to cut the scenes as we have indicated, but, as we shall see later, there may be exceptions when the rules need to be modifi ed to convey certain dramatic effects.
Preserving a Clear Continuity
Several other points, besides keeping a clear sense of direction, must be kept in mind if a lucid continuity is to result. In general, it is true to say that a sequence which introduces a new locale should start by establish-ing the topographical relationship between the players and the background. After this, the various close shots, in which individual characters and objects are singled out for closer inspection, will be seen by the specta-tor as part of the larger surroundings which have already been shown. There are, however, many exceptions to this procedure. Sometimes a director will deliberately start a sequence on a close shot of a detail and only later reveal it in relation to the larger setting. The opening sequence from Louisiana Story (p. 109) is a case in point. But it should be noticed that the purpose of this treatment was to create an aura of mystery about the swamp-forest; it was not to give a continuous, developing piece of “ plot. ” Even where a sequence starts on a detail, it is important that the whole setting should be shown at some stage.
Taking this principle a little further down the scale, we see that, if a big close-up is used, it should be pre-ceded by an image which shows the detail in its setting: i.e., by a shot in which the same object is seen from farther away.
In the same way, if there is a new development of some sort in the scene, which alters the situation shown in the establishing shot, then the scene must be re-established. If a new character walks into a room it is Figure 7 If the actor does reverse his direction, this should be shown as in b; a direct cut from a to c would be unacceptable.
essential to show him coming in and placing himself relative to the other characters before any close shot can be introduced. The whole of the sequence from The Passionate Friends (p. 69) provides an instructive example in this respect. Just preceding the extract quoted we have seen Howard and Steven talking to each other, and the scene was played in a series of close shots. As Mary enters, the whole scene is re-established. Shot 1 quite clearly shows Mary entering and takes her to a defi nite position in the room. After this, when the close shots come on the screen, we know exactly where each character is positioned. Each time one of the actors begins to move, the camera goes a little farther back to show his movement. Again, towards the end of the passage,
essential to show him coming in and placing himself relative to the other characters before any close shot can be introduced. The whole of the sequence from The Passionate Friends (p. 69) provides an instructive example in this respect. Just preceding the extract quoted we have seen Howard and Steven talking to each other, and the scene was played in a series of close shots. As Mary enters, the whole scene is re-established. Shot 1 quite clearly shows Mary entering and takes her to a defi nite position in the room. After this, when the close shots come on the screen, we know exactly where each character is positioned. Each time one of the actors begins to move, the camera goes a little farther back to show his movement. Again, towards the end of the passage,