For every and single one who wants to see one of the most badazz movies. It's Spun. This Editing style is mind blowing. Fast furious and makes a great play with time and perspective of "right" and "wrong". Sharp Acting too...This movie ROcKS.
Tell me what you thought of it I mean am I obseed or is this a freaken amazing style.
Peace
This message has been edited. Last edited by: ByrdDawg,
Originally posted by ByrdDawg: did you see it? The editing was.........some of the best editing I think I have ever seen
I don't mean to be a jerk...but if Spun had some of the best editing you've ever seen, you either haven't seen amny films or don't know much about editing. Check out French Connection, or Apocolypse Now, or Oktober or Potemkin (anything by Eisenstein really), or the Godfather, or Tarnation, or George Washington, or Amorres Perros, or anything by Bresson or Godard, or Raging Bull, or Magnolia, or Bully, or Blow up, or Metropolis, or Persona (once again, anything by Bergman), or 8 1/2 (Fellini has some of the best editing you'll ever see), or the better film that SPUN completely ripped off, Requiem for a Dream.
Posts: 131 | Location: Neenah | Registered: January 15, 2007
Ya you're no jerk. no problem. obviously you got your movies that you like. Ya half of them are half bad. Most good. Now for editing those films ya sweet kind considerate classic. Good sound , shoots, etc. ya all in their own way. Spun Stands on it's own style. editing wize it's like a freaken sword slicing the inards of a goose all over a the candystore, getting in the candy then in our teeth. This is what the editing is a a metaphore. To each thier own Metephore or score no more..
Originally posted by ByrdDawg: Ya you're no jerk. no problem. obviously you got your movies that you like. Ya half of them are half bad. Most good. Now for editing those films ya sweet kind considerate classic. Good sound , shoots, etc. ya all in their own way. Spun Stands on it's own style. editing wize it's like a freaken sword slicing the inards of a goose all over a the candystore, getting in the candy then in our teeth. This is what the editing is a a metaphore. To each thier own Metephore or score no more..
What? I like...I don't understandwhat you wrote. But no...Spun doesn't have it's own style. It has requiem for a dream's style. And no...it is does not stand on its above Eisentein's editing...without Eisenstein (or godard, or coppola,or bergman, or fellini), this forum, the school these people go to, and all the films everyone on here likes to watch would not exist. Editing as a major would not exist.
Posts: 131 | Location: Neenah | Registered: January 15, 2007
If you want to see a true masterpiece of editing, watch City of God – the metaphoric opening sequence is incredible.
Also, I'm going to guiltily confess here that Battleship Potempkin bored me to sleep. Yes, it's a crucial precedent that allowed filmmaking to be what it is today, but there have been a lot of advances since. A LOT. I can still appreciate it for it's historic value, and for its technique in places, but as far as I'm concerned the age is showing.
Originally posted by Ignis et Glacies: If you want to see a true masterpiece of editing, watch City of God – the metaphoric opening sequence is incredible.
Also, I'm going to guiltily confess here that Battleship Potempkin bored me to sleep. Yes, it's a crucial precedent that allowed filmmaking to be what it is today, but there have been a lot of advances since. A LOT. I can still appreciate it for it's historic value, and for its technique in places, but as far as I'm concerned the age is showing.
Feel free to crucify me now.
It depends on the environment you watch Potemkin in and what music is playing to it. It was so powerful because of where and when it was made, however the editing in that film and Oktober fall into a greatness comparable to Motzart. Godard also revolutionized editing...but I agree with you, City of God was very good, especially the night club scene with the strobe lights. Spun was...it was a film that pretty much ripped off Requiem 98%. Terrible movie.
Posts: 131 | Location: Neenah | Registered: January 15, 2007
Originally posted by Hall: And no...it is does not stand on its above Eisentein's editing...without Eisenstein (or godard, or coppola,or bergman, or fellini), this forum, the school these people go to, and all the films everyone on here likes to watch would not exist. Editing as a major would not exist.
That's not true. Be careful not to give too much credit to those who came before us. This is a young art form. Making claims like that puts these people at a level no body can ever hope to attain (effectively saying film has progressed as far as it can) without acknowledging that if they hadn't done what they did, somebody else, later, would have made the same revolutionary leaps.
We stand on the shoulders of giants, true, but they're not the best that we can be.
| PerryKroll.com | TRC | "If not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled." Wodehouse
Posts: 5197 | Location: Tisch at New York University | Registered: June 03, 2003
We stand on the shoulders of giants, true, but they're not the best that we can be.
That is true, but only about 6 or 7 filmmakers have been able to stand up to the reputation of people like eisenstein, chapman, lang, bergman, jorgen leth, fellini and godard. These are people who are, without the slightest embarrassment, classified along with beethovan, michaelangelo, and dostoevsky. We aren't required to surpass them, but if one feels they must, they would have to expand beyond pretty much anything seen in contemporary film. I think there are one or two currently functioning artists capable of doing that, but they haven't yet (I think one has come very close).
Posts: 131 | Location: Neenah | Registered: January 15, 2007
www.DANCAD3D.com, editing extends far beyond its basic technical structure and the length of its shots. There are things like juxtaposition, you have montage methonds (metric, rhythmic, tonal, overtonal, intellectual), it has aesthetic nuances like the mirror effects of Lynn Ramsay and Ken Loach's films...it is just as important in conveying symbolism, and aesthetic interpretation of a film as any of the writing or directing. There's a less subjective way to evaluate editing techniques, but it's far more complicated than counting and averaging lengths of shots and judging rhythm (actually, what you just wrote sounds a lot like Turan's theory that he formulated to test the length of shots in those terrible Michael Bay films). As for turning off the sound, that'd be cutting out a pretty important part of editing as well...I mean watch David Gordon Green films or even Bresson's Pickpocket.
Posts: 131 | Location: Neenah | Registered: January 15, 2007
Originally posted by Hall:Spun was...it was a film that pretty much ripped off Requiem 98%. Terrible movie.
What? I like...I don't understandwhat you wrote. But no...Spun doesn't have it's own style. It has requiem for a dream's style.
Same subject matter yes but requiem for a dream had its own style, definitely something new with montages and insert shots. spun took that idea and just like commercialism has taken jesus's christmas, expanded on it and made it something fresh. you might be too much of a traditionalist in order to fully experience the visionary qualities that spun spunily spunneled.
Studentfilms.com Filmmaking Forums 
