“The foundation of film art is editing”. That is the phrase that Pudovkin chose to open his essay, and it has great meaning to it. Think of film for a moment as an act of God and nature. The nature, which is this planet we are is null and void. The bible calls it emptiness, until God placed it into motion and placed objects and people in it. Editing is the process where God changed the storybook so to speak. We must believe that everything in the world has purpose and an end’s meaning. Going back to film, producers place everything accordingly for the most realistic experience for the audience. The scenes are shot carefully, as the editing of the scenes are edited wisely. The consistency of the film as a whole is made up of many sequences and shots that desire to be edited together accordingly. Every shade, color, object, and angle of the camera make a big difference in the quality of the film presentation. We must know what to add and what to delete when editing a film. The close-up emphasizes what we as the audience should focus on, otherwise we may not notice it (a small cigarette or a knife in his pocket).

What is a Kino-eye? Are we really who we think we are when viewing a film? We are both objective and subjective viewers of the art called film. The film and its editing masterpiece should be viewed upon as a relative to us. We must relate to it in as many ways as a mother relates to her daughter. But if the film is making an effort to cater to our own tastes and desires (regardless of our age,nationality, gender, or race) we must put a foot forward as well and try to reciprocate with the film’s meaning and message. We must give it a chance and give it our full attention. The Kino eye watches out for every little meaning.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Comments

  1. msbeatty Said,

    February 25, 2010 @ 11:38 pm

    Hesiod’s Theogony (http://tinyurl.com/yectgg) describes the the first act of creation as Chaos, which kinda translates as a “yawn” or gap. It’s through this yawn that the indiscriminate Tartarous is separated from the discriminate Earth. And that’s sorta like how you’re describing the editing process here, I think. By cutting, by opening the gap or void, meaning can be articulated.

  2. Vincent Li Sun Said,

    February 26, 2010 @ 2:40 pm

    Hi,
    you have brought up a really good discussion on editing and the example is great. indeed, editing tends to give films their meanings. as you mentioned, the consistency of the film depends on editing. every cut means something, connecting a movement, switching a focus, etc. however, there could be some exceptions, in my opinion. for example, the editing, even the story, of the surrealistic film we watched in class last week seems meaningless, so in this case, i might think that editing is not mean to be bringing out meanings. but on the other hand, maybe that film is mean to be meaningless, in this case, the meaning of the film should be “meaningless”, and thus the editing again has its meaning, which is to make the film meaningless.

    also, i think editing brings us attention, like you mentioned in the Kino-eye paragraph. although, the continuity editing method is to minimize the cause of attention of editing. the soviet montage is kind of different, as Prof. Herzog commented on the other post, the soviet montage (Eisenstein’s theory of montage) is mean to bring attentions to the audience, so they will think about it as they watch it. so there are two streams of editing method here, since the hollywood style is kind of a main stream now, the soviet montage seems like, in my opinion, an alternative editing style, but i think it is still cool! a different type of visual impulsion.

  3. Vincent Li Sun Said,

    February 26, 2010 @ 2:48 pm

    sorry i have to post a second one, just realize i used the screen name “justselina”, which no one might know who i am. so please delete the first post, i have attached the post in this one:

    justselina Said,
    February 26, 2010 @ 2:40 pm

    Hi,
    you have brought up a really good discussion on editing and the example is great. indeed, editing tends to give films their meanings. as you mentioned, the consistency of the film depends on editing. every cut means something, connecting a movement, switching a focus, etc. however, there could be some exceptions, in my opinion. for example, the editing, even the story, of the surrealistic film we watched in class last week seems meaningless, so in this case, i might think that editing is not mean to be bringing out meanings. but on the other hand, maybe that film is mean to be meaningless, in this case, the meaning of the film should be “meaningless”, and thus the editing again has its meaning, which is to make the film meaningless.

    also, i think editing brings us attention, like you mentioned in the Kino-eye paragraph. although, the continuity editing method is to minimize the cause of attention of editing. the soviet montage is kind of different, as Prof. Herzog commented on the other post, the soviet montage (Eisenstein’s theory of montage) is mean to bring attentions to the audience, so they will think about it as they watch it. so there are two streams of editing method here, since the hollywood style is kind of a main stream now, the soviet montage seems like, in my opinion, an alternative editing style, but i think it is still cool! a different type of visual impulsion.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment

Spam prevention powered by Akismet

Skip to toolbar