The Art of Editing!

Editing films is truly an art, and it has evolved over many years. The Lumiere brothers who were from France, started making movies around 1895 and they were known as the fathers of documentaries. In the earlier days, single extended wide angled shots were used to film the footage, this did not allow for much variety of shots in the film. This did not change for quite a while because filmmakers were afraid of confusing audiences by re-positioning the view of an angle. Continuity editing was used to achieve logic, smoothness, sequentiality and temporal and spatial orientation of viewers to what they see on screen. A very significant film was The Great Train Robbery, it was an important step in the documentary world because there was a part where the footage zoomed in on a man and he shot the screen, which was unreal and never done before in history. There are many different ways to edit a film. Montage editing which was pioneered by the Russians around 1920 is the juxtaposition of images to create meaning not found in either individual shot by itself. In other words, one meaning plus a second meaning equals a third meaning. Another way to edit is to do parallel editing; this is when you go back and forth between people. Then there is discontinuity editing which is when the cuts are more like a collision that a smooth transition. It drags out the shot by shooting the people in a variety of different shots and the finally pieces everyone together at the end.

Nixon: Checker's Speech & Resignation Speech

Nixon had two very significant speeches during his time in the spotlight in politics in the United States, they were his Checkers Speech and his Resignation Speech. The Checkers Speech, which took place in 1952 was Nixon’s sad attempt at trying to have an informal heart-to-heart with the American people. It was only an attempt because Nixon is incapable of being informal in front of the camera, he is just so awkward. In the Checkers Speech, Nixon tries to get sympathy from people by saying he is baring his soul. He plays the innocent card by “confessing” that he did accept a present from someone, a dog named Checkers who his kids loved so dearly. Nixon had 7 re-occurring themes in this speech. He claimed that he was not a quitter, he was a poor man made good, he was a family man, he was “telling the truth”, the press hates him, he was a dedicated Patriot and he used his wife as a prop. These themes and the awkwardness of his performance in front of the camera says that he is fake and all performance.

Nixon’s Resignation Speech took place in 1974. In this speech, Nixon did not try to perform for the camera or come off as informal. Instead Nixon read off a piece of paper and made minimal eye contact with the camera and audience. This shows that he was scared and ashamed to look at the American people. The one time he directly looked at the camera was when he claimed that he had never been a quitter. The fact that he made a clear point to look directly into the camera and at the audience makes it seem like he is telling the truth.

The Thin Blue Line

The film The Thin Blue Line is a documentary about a murder case that took place in 1976 in Texas. It was filmed in 1988 and directed by Errol Morris. The uniqueness of this documentary has to do with the reconstruction that was added in with the typical interviews and archival footage. At the time, reconstruction or “re-enacting” of something that occurred in the past was controversial and was not looked upon as professional or even considered to be a documentary type film. However, that all changed when this documentary was released. Its successfulness at using reconstruction while still keeping it a documentary paved the way for other films to have credible reconstruction footage. The film replayed the footage of the re-enacting scene of the police officer being shot probably over 15 times. Although almost every time they replayed it, it was in a slightly different way because it re-enacted the scene in whichever way it was being described by the person at the time. Another thing that the film did was continuously show close up footage of the red police light rotating around. It showed this so many times that it must symbolize for something, maybe justice? This documentary is considered a documentary that made a difference because it exposed the unjust ways of our justice system.

Paris is Burning!

The film Pair is Burning was definitely my favorite documentary watched in honors class. Paris is Burning was filmed in 1990 and was directed by Jennie Livingstein. The documentary tackled the concept about gender being performed rather than it being instinct. The narration was done by the subjects of the film and also by narration. The director sometimes intervened in the film to ask questions or suggest what the interviewee should say, this in a way interfered with the reality of it. The main setting or subject matter of the film was the “Ball” which was a place where gay people went to be themselves. They were able to let loose and feel good about who they were. They were able to live their fantasy of being a superstar for the night. In the documentary, it seemed not only was there goal to be the opposite sex, but they also had a goal to be a rich white person. Not only were they performing gender, but they were also performing a different race and social status. This controversial film triggers many different emotions for people. Some feel disgust, some feel happiness, and others might feel anger. When I watched this film, however, I felt at peace that these people found something that makes them feel good and makes them feel happy. Our world is so full of hatred so it is a relief to see love and acceptance in a group of people. I also felt sad that the men in this group had to try so hard to be accepted. Paris is Burning is considered to be an ethnographic documentary because it is about a diverse subculture.

Feed

The film Feed is a documentary and comedy about running for President. The documentary begins with a testing screen on the television. While the testing screen is being shown, there is a man’s voice talking which turns out to be the voice of President Bush (Senior). Then it is cross cut to footage of angry people protesting Bush as President but then there are protesters who are supporting Bush there also. This symbolizes the split that was happening in America over the politics. Then the men running for president in hopes of taking over the presidential office after Bush were shown. The whole documentary basically consisted of cross cutting between the different candidates. Much of the footage is informal and unflattering of the men, which displays them in a very unprofessional light. The candidates consisted of Pat Buchanan, Bob Kerry, Jerry Brown, Tom Harkin, Paul Tosngas and President Bush. The footage is of the most of the men either freaking out about their hair or clothing before they go on air or they are having technical issues when on air, making them look laughable. The documentary portrays the business of politics as a joke and questions which men are real and which are performing in order to look good on the camera.

LBJ

The documentary LBJ was filmed in 1968 and was directed by Santiago Alvarez. This documentary’s subject matter was all about President Lynden B. Johnson who was ran our country from 1963 to 1969. The filmmakers wanted to construct Johnson as the villain in the film and as a figure of hatred. Alvarez used a lot of archival footage; however he twisted that footage in a variety of ways to make Johnson look like an evil person. The very beginning of the film opens up with dramatic horror music playing. One way that Alvarez distorted the archival footage was he showed wedding pictures of Johnson’s daughter getting married but instead of showing them normally, he cast a red shade over the picture symbolizing evil. The documentary uses a lot of cross cutting between Johnson and a dog's face. This just insinuates how ridiculous and stupid Johnson is. The documentary shows footage and pictures from the assasinations of both of the Kennedys, Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X. A photo of Johnson is shown holding guns, making it seem like he was indeed the one responsible for all these deaths. Alvarez uses a lot of metaphors in his film, a very significant metaphor that was used was the owl. After each assasinations, an owl sitting in a tree at night was shown. I think this symbolizes death or possibly even Lynden B. Johnson.

Primary

The documentary Primary was directed by Robert Drew. This documentary followed John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey around during the Wisconsin Primary. This film is a great example of the role of performance in the image of the president, or those running for president. JFK was very charming, smooth and knew how to manipulate his image so it looked good on the camera where as Humphrey did not do this so well and looked more awkward on camera. The filmmaker used observational filming in this documentary and therefore it was not scripted at all. There was a lot of cross cutting used between JFK and Humphrey. This showed the apparent differences between their images and the way they presented themselves. The film showed Kennedy seeming as if he did not have to try very hard to be charming to the people; however Humphrey appeared to have difficulty and had to try very hard. In many of the scenes, the people were flocking towards Kennedy all excited and trying to get autographs, handshakes, and etcetera. On the other hand, Humphrey was alone on the sidewalk having to go out of his way to greet people and shake THEIR hands. This may have been how it truly was, or the filmmaker might have cut out different scenes and made these scenes contrast each other to make it look as if Kennedy is the favored candidate. I also noticed that the film focused much more on Kennedy and his wife Jackie than it did Humphrey. It displayed great moments of Kennedy, for example when he was walking through the crowd shaking everyone’s hands after he gave his amazing speech, but it shows mediocre moments of Humphrey, for example when he is giving a speech at an informal restaurant. It is safe to say that this film wanted to portray Kennedy in a better light than Humphrey and that could have been one of the reasons Kennedy won.