'The Departed': Choppy craftsmanship?

I agree with what Bordwell says about holding a two shot and letting the actor's bodies create the scene. That is why, for me, it is still a joy to watch any Woody Allen film, even if the story is stale and the acting old news. His camera rarely jumps back and forth in the shot/ reverse shot, and these days its fresh to see a dialogue scene just play out in one shot that contains both characters.

However, I have seen The Departed and other Scorsese films, and I have never noticed problems with character placement, etc. Speaking specifically of this film, the editing made it what it was, and in my opinion that was an incredible thriller with several layers of meaning. By keeping that shot length short, Scorsese and Thelma Schoonmaker build a tension that never stops. The film rarely ever gives the audience a moment to breath. It doesn't remind me of all the other films, the action genre in particalur, these days because Scorsese still provides a story, with solid characters. The most important parts of the film are those in which the characters are talking, not shooting each other. I think it is underestimating two great artists to hint that Scorsese and Schoonmaker are simply following the times and trend. Martin Scorsese makes films the way he wants to, end of story.

Why are match cuts automatically a sign of bad editing? As a movie fan, I'll sacrifice cuts not matching for story momentum and performance. Because the cuts don't match (whether it's in "The Departed", or especially in "Goodfellas") doesn't mean it is poorly edited it means that Scorsese had his mind on more important things while shooting than whether or not the shots matched, and Thelma Schoonmaker knows when to take a shot because it will make the movie better rather than just because it doesn't follow the rules of traditional editing. Didn't we all learn this during the French New Wave?

I agree with Bordwell's observation that "The Departed"'s editing is not only superb (as many critics are stating), but noticeably jarring. However, I have to disagree with Bordwell's larger point about Scorsese's editing...I think that "Goodfellas" might be the best edited film I've ever seen, and of course his earlier work glides together seamlessly. Even in Scorsese films that I do not admire, such as "Casino", the editing has always been seamless.

Yes, there are a few continuity gaffes (there's a restaurant scene in "Goodfellas" where Paul Sorvino is smoking a cigar while talking, and it jumps all over the place). But I'd gladly sacrifice a bit of continuity for the fluidity that Scorsese brings to most his films (but not, alas, "The Departed").

I was very glad to discover Bordwell's comments on Scorsese's editing, as it is one of the few clear-eyed assessments of The Departed I've yet seen. Even those reviews that shaded to the negative included de rigeuer comments about Scorsese's technical mastery - but from what I saw on the screen, little of that supposed mastery was in evidence. While complaints about editing will likely be scoffingly shoved aside by the film's rabid supporters, I think that such consideration are absolutely essential to the film's larger flaws. Shoddy and careless placement of figures and action in the frame does not necessarily lead to the larger feeling that these characters lack a believable connection to their milieu, but it certainly abets it.

Also, good on Bordwell for calling attention to James Gray's The Yards as a point of comparison. Now there's a film that feels lived in, where crime and murder feel like intrinsic elements of the milieu rather than audience-pleasing splatter scenes, where the actors have room to move around and live within their characters. And where the action matches from shot to shot.

I'm not sure I can agree with Alex regarding the seamlessness of the editing in GoodFellas. I have issues with the overall film that go beyond the way it is edited and paced (although I don't think the editing of the third-act cocaine section works at all as well as Scorsese and Schoonmaker intended). But there are individual sequences that are littered with continuity errors and mismatched cuts that are just too glancing to be considered anything but graphic failures. During an editing seminar I took several years ago I was really surprised, when taking a look at the "Do I strike you as a funny man?" scene, to see so many disappearing cigars and arms in mismatched positions and characters placed differently as the shots ricocheted back and forth. It was clear to me that Scorsese was counting on the audience being mesmerized with the drama on the screen to such a degree that he could let such jagged edges go out unsmoothed. I can also remember scenes involving De Niro and Sandra Bernhard walking down the street in The King of Comedy that were so jarringly pieced together that I had to assume at the time it was intentional. Here it seems we're feeling the influence of the New Wave that Kyle referred to, but I'm not so sure I buy this rationale when the ragged edges come within such a traditionally cut two-shot scene as the one in GoodFellas. And to hear him giving way to an MTV sensibility, editing his films up into shorter and shorter shards, and then letting himself off the hook by claiming not to do it well, doesn't exactly fill me with inspiration. I have not yet seen The Departed, but I wonder if another look at The King of Comedy would make me believe I was right in my original conclusion, or whether we have to concede that Scorsese's films have only the illusion of seamlessness, and even then that illusion seems to be quite easily shattered.

I finally saw "The Departed" today. I'm a fan of the original "Infernal Affairs", so I was hoping for a lot. I was not displeased. I liked it quite a bit, in fact. The performances were insanely enjoyable, and believeable, including Nicholson's who I thought was scrumptious. People have been complaining about his scene-chewing. I'm sorry, did I miss the boat, must every character in the cinema be subtle and subdued. I believed he was crazy and would kill (which isn't something I believe about a lot of villian's in the movies). I believed he was a killer whose power had gone to his head, and he was starting to lose it. That's what he was, wasn't he? So why should he not play it that way? Tell me this, what actor can hold your attention more by doing nothing than Jack. There's the wonderful scene where he's in the balcony of the theatre watching the opera. He hardly moves, but you're mezmorized by his performance, because he's not "acting" or "performing". Really quite a brilliant actor who gets far too much guff for doing what most actors could only dream of doing.

As far as Scorcese's editing. IT'S MEANT TO BE JARRING! It's always been meant to be jarring and uneven. Have you heard the way the guy talks! Rat-tat-tat-tat-tat. It's there, in his movies. He knows when to hold a shot long, and when not to. In this film everything seemed to fit the style and pacing of the story. It's nice for Mr. Bordwell to pick out five or six of his movies to tear apart but he's directed almost 30 films, ranging from gangster films to period dramas, many with different styles and appeals. I don't know if "The Age of Innocence" or "Kundun" would back up Bordwell's theory or not of faster cutting times, and they came out after "Goodfellas". I just love the short sightedness of some people that write about film or see movies, they focus on what is directly in front of them, and make comparisons, and find material to back up what they see at that moment in time, and throw the rest out. Even watching "The Departed" the shots in which the camera lingered were that much more effective, because it changed the pace of the film. After Damon's character hears everything go to hell on the other end of the phone, the camera holds on him, waits for him to stand, turn off the light, and move away from the desk to lean against the wall behind him - it really hits you, that moment, that performance. This was fortunately a wonderfully made film.

Continuity doesn't always have to do with the editor by the way, many times it's the script consultant on set, so to blame Schoonmaker for all of the errors is ridiculous.

And I only have one disagreement with the film and that is with Mark Wahlberg's character (who was still excellent) and what it added to the film, which to me was unnecessary story wise, and was handled much more appropriately and believeably in the original "IA", without his character. Especially in the final moments of the film. A crowd pleasing moment? At the end of a Scorcese gangster film? That's what's unheard of.

Why can't we just let a movie be a movie for a little bit before it becomes a test subject. If you're looking for discrepancies in a movie that shouldn't have had any, take a look at one of my favorite films from the past few years - "Munich" - talk about some glaringly bad continuity problems, and in a Spielberg film?? Unheard of. But does it take away from the movie - hardly.

Ha! First thing I say to my friends out of the theatre: "Did you notice how many terrible cuts there were?" The Departed takes the cake as the film that I've noticed the most from on a first viewing. (I also, in my little comment capsule about the film on your blog here, mentioned this issue.)

However bad Scorsese's continuity may be, Spielberg is a zillion times worse, as Mr. Kelly states. If you made one tickmark for every problem in Jurassic park, you'd be making one every minute (at least).

I say this to prove a point: Jurassic Park and The Departed are two very entertaining and wonderful films. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that Scorsese's jarringness is intentional, but to say that his scenes are poorly mounted is to be laughed at. Scorsese is vibrant and alive and passionate and energetic (if not a good director, at least he's these things). His films are the same way. If they're not good, at least they're exciting (well, an exception can be made for Gangs of New York). I wouldn't say that the jarringness is unintentional, but I will say that it is mostly unimportant. If it's overly distracting (the way it frequently was in The Departed), it can leave a sour taste, but the film's goal is to razzle-dazzle with other pleasures so that it becomes a nit to pick instead of a real problem.

I noticed the cuts sometimes while watching. So what?

Personally I find the standard of having everything stay static throughout the scene is often very un-natural and dull.

People move when they talk, the things they're holding and interacting are picked up, put down and so on...the world is a constantly changing place, not a static movie set.

There was nothing that took me out of the the film for even half a second though. No change from shot to shot that couldn't have easily (and in the real world, would have often) taken place while the camera was off the character.

And you can't seriously believe that this is simply shoddy workmanship on Scorsese's part...that he simply didn't notice this and that you're making some great revelation or bringing something to the attention of the movie-going public. Scorsese knows it was there, people who watched it knew it was there...we just didn't care.

The one thing I was taught in film school was that director's "cheat" things and people to make the next shot more visually interesting. Spielberg uses this technique a lot. It's a different kind of continuity "problem" than the kinds everyone is speaking about in "The Departed" (which I also noticed, but did not distract me from the thrill of the film). The "problem" in more of Spielberg's films is a trick, it's intentional. The moments I'm speaking of in "Munich" are completely unintentional: the body of the first person they kill suddenly ending up turned over, and in the sequence when Rush and Bana are walking along the large sidewalk by a beach I believe it was they distinctly pass the same set of extras twice in different parts of their conversation - these are continuity errors not like his typical cheats to get the beautifully constructed shots he wants.

The one thing I found interesting about "The Departed" wasn't only that the shots were short, but many of the scenes consisted of three or four of these quick shots all together. The cocaine in the bedroom, throwing the wire into the river. He's confident as a director he doesn't need to linger on these moments in the film - that they don't have to be any longer than they are. He dosn't want to bore us with the same things we've seen a zillion times in a zillion other movies. It's a very wise decision to make as a director. The one that stood out the most was towards the end when Nicholson is about to be pleasured by his woman. The sequence is about 4 shots long, the final line of dialogue is placed over a shot that in no way matches what we just saw before, but the effect lingers. You can't tell me the way this way edited was unintetional. That moment sits long after it has left the screen, because of the way it was edited, throwing out a fluid shot by shot continuity, which leaves much more to the imagination as far as I'm concerned. It gave it a very distant and creepy feel. I could continue to pick examples of brilliantly edited sequences in this film that not only keeps you emotionally involved from a visual aspect, but is incredibly fluid (pay attention to the three shots that occur immediately after DiCaprio's cast is busted up). Scorcese has almost always been about juxtaposing abruptness with fluidity. You see it throughout "Raging Bull" and "Goodfellas" and "Casino" even in "After Hours" or "The Last Temptation of Christ". The same can be said for "The Departed". The biggest problem with "The Departed" isn't in the editing, it's in the abundance of unnecessary story elements, that add candy colored flavor, but do little to add to the emotional through line of the film.

Jim, you're reaching here. This smacks of desperation. It's bringing out the worst in you -- the petty, pretentious side of your personality. For whatever reason, you've decided to make this anti-"Departed" thing into an all-consuming personal crusade, and you just won't let it drop. You must be insecure in your views because you keep looking -- somewhere, anywhere -- for "proof" that you're "right" about this movie and that everone else is "wrong." First, you scour reviews of the movie by OTHER critics until you find quotes to back up what you think, now you cite this ludicrous "sloppy editing" diatribe. You're trying to skewer Scorsese with chapter-and-verse, so to speak, and you're coming across as petulant and sulky, a sore loser. You act as if Scorsese is a middle school pupil and has turned in "The Departed" as his homework assignment. I suppose if this blog entry doesn't stir up the kind of instant, immediate backlash you seem to want, you'll just take your message to the streets -- donning a sandwich board and ringing a bell in front of cineplexes, shouting, "Hear ye! Hear ye! Moviegoers! Do not support Martin Scorsese with your entertainment dollar! His films have serious matching problems!"

You know what I think the problem is? I think it's the fact that this is campaign season. Really, I do. You can't turn on the TV or radio without hearing negative campaign ads, and your work is being negatively affected by exposure to this. I can practically hear the anti-Scorsese TV commercial now:

(cue creepy music)
"Martin Scorsese SAYS he's a competent film director, but his editing mis-matches tell a DIFFERENT story. Don't support this man with your hard-earned entertainment dollar!"

By the way, Andrew Tracy: while I count myself as an admirer of "The Departed," I resent your implication that I and other fans of the movie have rabies. Cooties possibly, but rabies? Never.

As the previous poster noted, even if people did notice the shoddiness of the editing, they didn't care - and that's just the problem. I would like to point out that, contrary to what Mr. Birch states, Scorsese's actors are static and unmoving in these dialogue scenes. That's why he cuts so relentlessly back and forth between angles, because he hasn't given his actors anything to do other than sit there, and that's why their actions and positions don't match. This is weak and unimaginative direction, and certainly not energetic.

This willingness to accept Scorsese's obvious sloppiness ties in to larger problems with the reaction to the film. It's my firm belief that people are projecting virtues onto The Departed that are simply not there on the screen. People so desperately want Scorsese to make a masterpiece that they will uncritically gush over any and everything he does. Why Scorsese merits this special treatment is rather mystifying - especially as his two most exciting, envelope-pushing films of the last decade or so, Age of Innocence and Kundun, were both rather coolly received. Guess they didn't have enough bloody CGI head shots.

I don't think anybody, including Mr. Bordwell or Mr. Emerson, is suggesting that continuity editing should be the de-facto standard, and that a film should be judged poorly if it doesn't adhere to it. The question is not whether the film's editing breaks continuity, but simply whether or not it is effective. I didn't find it so, and have felt the same way about many of his films. It is probably because of the highly self-conscious editing that the Scorsese films that don't work for me seem downright laughable: Cape Fear, Gangs of New York, and, yes, even GoodFellas. When the story doesn't draw me in, I focus more on the sylistic choices that, to me, often feel overwrought and heavy-handed. But I wouldn't argue with anyone who called Raging Bull "heavy-handed" yet I think it's a very fine movie.

Of course, what I call "heavy-handed", others would call "panache" or "brio." And while I can't imagine anyone would call Scorsese a subtle director even at his best, it's also fair to say that some critics overrate the merits of subtlety. So Scorsese likes to hammer you over the head - nothing wrong with that. I love punk rock, after all. I just think Scorsese has been more "blink-182" than "Ramones" lately.

A note to the "Departed" supporters (and, yes, rabid is a fair description) here: Just because a critic has a different take on a film than you do doesn't mean he is an idiot, a snob, or engaging in a conspiracy to suppress the obvious glory of this masterpiece of modern cinema. It could be that an intelligent, thoughtful person who loves movies simply has a different opinion than you do. Just a wild thought to throw out there.

Thanks for putting me in my place (and making me laugh), Joe. (Did you ever see that series of campaign ad parodies on "Mr. Show"? One of the funniest things I've ever seen.)

But I think you misunderstand what I'm saying/doing here. First, "The Departed" received overwhelmingly positive reviews (94% on RottenTomatoes as I write this); that's the context in which I decided to piece together reviews from others that I thought pointed out the flaws I saw in the movie. Maybe it's in part because I watched "Infernal Affairs" shortly before seeing "The Departed," but I was disappointed.

As I said in the second post, where I quoted David Bordwell, I was distracted by the cutting in the movie. And I'm not talking about the usual continuity errors (Bordwell also mentions disappearing beer cans and cigarettes -- but I didn't even notice those). I'm talking about the disorienting sensation I got from actors who are shifting in space, or looking in different directions, from shot to shot. You could probably make an argument that this violation of traditional Hollywood standards is made in the interest of something larger -- capturing certain nuances in a performance even if it doesn't quite cut with what's before or after it; or maybe an indication of how much freedom Scorsese gives his actors. Maybe it's even an intentional technique, a varation on the Godardian (or Capra-esque) "jump cut," or a Brechtian distancing device that serves to remind us that we're watching a movie (an argument some have made regarding Hitchock's use of patently artificial painted studio backdrops and back-projection). If somebody wants to make one of those arguments, or some other, please feel free to do so. I'd love to read it.

As Christopher Long points out, I'm not saying "The Departed" is a bad movie, or that this strange editing makes it a bad movie, and I don't think David Bordwell is, either. (I was much MORE distracted by Nicholson's performance, which I think seriously undermines the movie.) I'm saying I agree with Bordwell that the unusual editing, which violates traditional standards of Hollywood craftsmanship, was something I found distracting. There's no denying the fact of what's on the screen. That's why I posted this and wanted to throw it open to discussion. Please don't mistake paying attention to the movie for "pettiness" or "pretension" -- although I have no doubt those are part of my personality, too! I'm not campaigning -- although I seem to be running against the critical tide on this one. But isn't the occasional contrarian voice a good thing?

As I said, I plan to write about "The Departed" in light of my Scorsese essay "GoodFellas and BadFellas," but I want to see the movie again first and I just haven't had a chance yet.

First, incidentally, the actor’s name is Alec Baldwin, not Alex Baldwin. I have the utmost respect for David Bordwell, and I agree with much of what he’s written here, but I don’t agree with his assertion that The Departed is poorly edited. Yes, it doesn't always strictly adhere to the principles of classic Hollywood continuity editing, but is it not possible that the sum total of the jagged cutting, mismatches, and perpetually shifting perspectives created by the way this film is edited is the most appropriate way to assemble a film about undercover work—with the deception, distortion, double vision, disorientation, double-mindedness, and misdirection that that life implies? I suspect part of the reason Bordwell is irked by the editing style of the film is that it doesn’t fit neatly into his own Grand Narrative of Film in which classical continuity editing is such a key element.

JE: Matt, that Baldwin thing was just a typo. It's fixed now. See Bordwell's comments below.

I agree with some of the comments, that the editing of in The Departed was a huge asset. The quick editing gave the movie an intentionally uneven feeling that kept me on the edge of my seat. I think it makes the parallel storylines seem even more complicated. Also with regards to not visually capturing Boston, I feel like the characters themselves brought out a lot of Boston even if the locations did not. A majority of the movie was shot in NYC by the way, which could also be a problem.

I only wanted to point out how proud of himself Scorsese seemed when he went on Conan O'Brien. He specifically mentioned how an over-the-shoulder conversation scene between Nicholson and DiCaprio was shot, that is, with two cameras running at the same time. According to him, what you see in there is happening in real time. I hope for his sake he's not reading this blog.

I have always admired Scorsese's editing and the staying power it has on the viewer. The second plane crash in The Aviator is one of the truest depictions of violence I've scene on film in past years. His "jarring" editing style might have something to do with this. I only hope directors can be given these stylistic freedoms or else we'll all end up with too precise an editing job, an element I've always felt contributes to the creepiness and stiffness of most Kubrick films. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Jim, a typically gracious response to a comment that doesn't merit one (though that Mr. Show sketch is wicked funny). I think that the tortured rationales for Scorsese's evident sloppiness (I reiterate this point, insistently)which the film's supporters are pushed to is indicative of the fact that what they're supporting when they rave about The Departed is not The Departed per se, but the idea of Martin Scorsese as the Great American Filmmaker.

Bordwell might indeed be a staunch classicist, but Scorsese's editing "strategies" with this film are not part of some radical deconstructionist project; they are bad habits, which, as Bordwell notes, are characteristic of the great majority of Hollywood studio films today. Scorsese is not some sage on a mountaintop: he is making highly commercial features which are clearly intended to pull in Oscars come March, though they have yet to be succesful in that regard.

This is not to tar Scorsese as some multiplex whore, but rather to point out that he is greatly affected by the commercial climate in which he works, and that his aesthetic choices (or non-choices) are greatly affected by his awareness of that climate. And not to be overly cynical, but I'd suggest that no film which garners 94% raves from the press is going to be challenging audiences' aesthetic boundaries that much. Formalism don't play in Peoria.

Jim, If watched back to back, "IA" does make "The Departed" disappointing. I will say again, I think not because of editing or performance (which seems to be the focus of both your blogs), but because of unnecessary story elements. Let's have some people talk about that.

I will also make note here that people are over looking the wonderful performance of Vera Farmiga. That was a role I think that became better in this film, and was used as more of a plot device in "IA", as Walhberg was in "The Departed".

Whew! A lot of discussion, all of it interesting and provocative. And thanks for spotting the typo in Alec Baldwin's name. I went back and fixed it, if only out of respect for an actor I've enjoyed ever since "Miami Blues" and "The Hunt for Red October."
Some quick corrections: I didn't say that "The Departed" was poorly edited, rather that it "wasn't particularly well edited." I didn't say that the film displayed "sloppy craftsmanship," which has somehow become the key linking term in this thread. I said the editing was choppy and that mundane craftsmanship was important. I also didn't blame anyone in particular, certainly not Ms. Schoonmaker or continuity staff members. Who knows why these things are the way they are?

Without trying to respond comprehensively, here are some clarifications and further points.

1. I tried to suggest that performances consist of more than what we see in the actors' faces: they often depend on a wider context of framing, cutting, lighting, and other techniques. Keeping continuity on all these dimensions can subtly affect our sense of a scene's concreteness or reality. Now there are mismatches in Hollywood moviemaking from the 1910s onward, and you can find plenty once you start looking. But there are directors who seldom mismatch (Lubitsch, Hitchcock) and others who do so but cunningly disguise it (Hawks for one). I was just watching "Inside Man" tonight, and having been primed by this discussion I noticed that the filmmakers seem to take pains to avoid mismatches, largely by not letting actors gesture in shot/ reverse shots but also by giving pretty smooth matches on movements when they do occur. My point about "The Departed" echoes Jim's comments; I found the mismatches there distracting to a degree that they aren't in other films. I've been distracted by mismatches in several other Scorsese films, and it seems that others have been as well.

2. I do think that the frequent mismatches in Scorsese's films are intentional, in at least this sense: He cares about other things more. I suspect that he shoots a lot of takes of every dialogue line and then selects the moments he wants, with less concern for whether they cut together. It's sort of a cost/ benefit notion. Is what he loses in the mismatches of body position, etc. and the resulting sense of concrete continuity overridden by what we get along other dimensions? For me, no. As I tried to say in my blog, a lot of what we get in this film is material we've seen in other Scorsese films.

3. The cutting-rate issue: I do think that directors should swim against the tide of accelerating editing if only because it's worth trying something a little unfashionable. But slow cutting doesn't make a film good, and fast cutting doesn't make it bad. My point was that for Scorsese, as for most contemporary directors, the impulse to cut fast is tied to a commitment to close-ups, static character position, limitation of performance to facial expression and voice, etc.--all choices that limit performance options and offer, in many cases, little opportunity to explore the expressive resources of other techniques. I also indicated that a director who embraced rapid cutting need not go quite so far in tightness of framing; "Infernal Affairs," though cut fast, yields more spacious framings than many contemporary Hollywood films.

To get a sense of what I'm driving at, we could go back and look at even an ordinary Hollywood movie of the 1930s, say one of the Mr. Moto B films. Here a simple two-shot can give extra layers to a performance by letting characters interact in a coherent space, reacting to one another in real time or using their hands or shoulders in subtle ways. In the more distant framings, actors move meaningfully through a space, trading places, crossing in front of the camera, blocking or revealing important action, advancing or receding as the action demands. The classical directors used a lot of cutting too, and plenty of shot/ reverse-shot, but they integrated those techniques into a more pluralistic style. Today's directors, I maintain, have limited their creative options too much. Not that everyone has to do the same thing, but no one seems to be doing anything else. We can have a good discussion about Woody Allen in this connection, but these days even he and Mike Nichols, and Roman Polanski cut faster, rely on camera movement and close views, and block more simply.

4. I don't know what Matt is referring to in mentioning my Grand Narrative of Film. My book "On the History of Film Style" argues that there are no such narratives. Historically, continuity editing is one building block of mainstream cinema, a kind of lingua franca for a certain approach to storytelling. It can't be ignored. But evaluatively, classical continuity editing has no special status for me. That is, I don't get irked when films violate continuity, if they have purposive reasons for that choice. I've written books on directors who deviated radically from continuity principles (Dreyer, Ozu, Eisenstein). I've devoted another book ("Figures Traced in Light") to directors like Mizoguchi and Hou and Feuillade, for whom ensemble blocking is far more important than any sort of editing. But just as a director who works through long takes and subtle blocking may do it effectively or ineffectively, a director who has cast his or her lot with continuity editing can use it precisely and imaginatively, or not. The technique is one thing, the usage another.

5. Judgments are comparative, I think, and so I'm inclined to liken or contrast "The Departed" to other Scorsese films, other films in contemporary Hollywood, and other films in the genre from other countries.For this reason, risking redoubled blows, I'd maintain that most of the freshest aspects of "The Departed" derive from "IA." I took this as one symptom of the greater originality and forcefulness of the Asian tradition. The purpose of my original blog was to use the release of "The Departed" to encourage viewers to go on to examine other, relatively little-known directors and films. Put alongside the cinematic imagination we see in "Sonatine" or "A Hero Never Dies" or "The Mission" or "Hana-bi" or "Nowhere to Hide," I think that most American crime films, "The Departed" included, miss major creative opportunities by being fairly standardized in their approach to cinema.

I happen to strongly agree with Mr. Bordwell's recommendation (or perhaps I should just say "wish" or "hope") that more Hollywood directors resist the urge to indulge in fast cutting/intensified continuity. I cannot say that fast cutting is inherently a bad thing, even though I know I generally do not like it. After all, Abel Gance (has)received endless praise for his artistry and boldness when he cut the living hell out of "La roue" way back when.

Using the quick-cutting approach which, as Mr. Bordwell has also said, tends to be linked with heavy reliance on close-ups means you sacrifice other options. What this gives up often-times (and again Mr. Bordwell has said this before), is the sense of bodies in space. Instead, you have "heads in isolation."

A simpler example than "The Departed" might be to look at some of the films Jet Li or Jackie Chan have made in Hollywood vs. the films they made in Hong Kong. Look at the differences in editing and shot scale (close-ups vs. long shots). In the best HK films, you see the actors operating in space - which has an almost documentary effect - the actors have a more tangible reality, and you KNOW they are really performing those actions. In Hollywood, those actions are often simulated by cutting and reliance of close-ups. Perhaps this is even more pronounced in Hollywood "pretend" action films where the actors have no physical skills, so the simulation is required. But it isn't as powerful or as convincing (in other words, it's a "cheat"), and the audience senses this even if not consciously. We know that the long shot which shows us the entire space is simply more "legit" than all the close-ups (of course, CGI is changing even this link to physical reality.)

Of course, quick cutting/heads-in-isolation style can be used well too. The showdown in "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" is a triumph of this style (even if a caricatured one.) But there are other options, and they are used less frequently in Hollywood today.

They are, however, being used elsewhere, and I would argue there is actually a very conscious counter-movement to intensified continuity coming from the likes of Tsai ming-liang, Jia zhang-ke, Bela Tarr and others.

If anyone has made it this far into my post, I want to second Mr. Bordwell's recommendations of Takeshi Kitano's films. "Sonatine," "Fireworks," "Brother" - it's hard to go wrong. He is a true master.

One quick follow-up. For what I think is the most numbing example of modern hyper-active editing, I recommend that people tune in to Jim Cramer's show "Mad Money" on the CNBC network. Watch the Lightning Round segment, and try to endure the editing. I am sure the ASL is no more than 1.0 seconds, perhaps much less, camera movement is non-stop and seemingly haphazard. All of which is employed to inject "energy" into a long scene of a guy who is just pacing behind a desk and giving stock recommendations.

I would be particularly interested to know if Mr. Bordwell has ever seen this segment, and where he thinks it fits into the intensified continuity paradigm. The show is on CNBC at 6 pm, 9pm and midnight eastern, I believe, and the lightning round segment usually comes in the middle.

I actually found the frequent crosscutting between Damon's and DiCaprio's scenes distracting. It drew my attention to the editing and Scorsese's technique, rather than building the drama and bringing me closer to the characters.

Of course, you could say the same for Scorsese's technique in GOODFELLAS, but that movie was not dramatically structured the way, say, THE GODFATHER was. Despite some excellent performances (notably Joe Pesci's), dramatically speaking, GOODFELLAS stayed outside its characters--purposely so. And so Scorsese's (brilliant) direction was not so much a distraction as it was the main attraction. In THE DEPARTED, however, Scorsese obviously is shooting for greater depth, with mixed results.

Again, it's a good movie, but not the great one critics are promising.

I haven't seen The Departed yet, because it still haven't premiered in my country, but I have seen several films from those which Mr Bordwell mentions in his final paragraph of his comment.
I would like to recommend Johnnie To's "Breaking News" to anyone who thinks quick-cuts are neccessary to establish a jarring, disorienting and tense atmosphere.

Thanks to Professor Bordwell for taking the time to clarify his position here, and thanks again to Jim for allowing us all this forum for discussion. To clarify my comments, as I see it, anyone who has seen a lot of films has developed some sort of personal, subjective story of a theoretical Ideal Film, a cluster of preconceived, prescriptive ideas about what a film should be, and this has a role in shaping the viewer’s expectations and experience of whatever particular film, and in making critical assessments like “wasn’t particularly well edited.�? The assumption being, I assume, that a well-edited film is one that either uses continuity editing effectively, or violates the principals of continuity editing with “purposive reasons for that choice�? . . . which I can accept as a contingent proposition

If I understand Professor Bordwell correctly, he’s arguing that these “blatant mismatches of position, eyeline, and gesture�? are violations of the principals of the continuity system without sufficient artistic purpose to justify these violations. His explanation for these violations, that Scorsese cares about other things more, certainly makes sense as a possible rationale (this reminded me of the obvious camera bump in a key scene in Casino, which Scorsese chose to use in the film because that take contained what he felt were the best performances among all the takes of that scene). Still, I feel that these things do have a purpose that sufficiently justifies violation of continuity principals. Granted, I have only had the opportunity to see the film a single time, but for me these—let’s call them departures—are justified by virtue of their functioning as a visual correlative to the mental states of the characters (this makes me think of the “scramble suits�? in this year’s other undercover movie, A Scanner Darkly). For the most part, for me the emotion rhythms of these scenes overwhelm the demands of strict continuity editing.

Scorsese has always supported improvisational acting, so my guess is the continuity errors are in part caused by Scorsese picking out the delivery of certain lines he likes, in preference to making the shots match. I mean, what was up with that part where Nicholson goes back for his cigarette? I doubt that was in the shooting script, but it is in the film.

I'm glad that James Gray was mentioned. However, consider that The Yards is edited substantially faster than Gray's first film Little Odessa (1994), which has an A.S.L. of about 12 seconds. This compares with about 6 seconds for the theatrical cut of The Yards.

It seems that Gray used many long takes (especially slow zooms) in Little Odessa, because he didn't have time (read: money) to shoot numerous reaction shots. Working on a bigger budget for The Yards (and maybe under the influence of Weinstein) made Gray include many more shot/reverse-shot sequences, hence the halved ASL. It will be interesting to see what happens on Gray's next film, We Own the Night (2007).

Matt, Simon, et al.: I think you're absolutely correct, as I mentioned in my comment above, that there could be any number of explanations for why "The Departed" has so many mismatched shots. Could be intentional (I'd like to hear more about what the deliberate strategy/effect would be in that case), or it could be that Scorsese was emphasizing performance over traditional Hollywood standards. But that's the important thing to remember here: David Bordwell has written books about techniques (including shooting and cutting rules) in the classic Hollywood style, and no one is more familiar with those standards than Scorsese, the obsessive cinephile/historian (see "A Journey Through American Film with Martin Scorsese" and "My Voyage to Italy"). Scorsese, who has done most of his work for studios, knows what Bordwell writes about in "The Way Hollywood Does It," "Figures Traced in Light" and others (see list here.)

So, when Scorsese (a film teacher himself at NYU) doesn't apply those classical standards of craftsmanship, he's not doing it because he doesn't know how to do it in the Hollywood tradition of professionalism. He's doing it for other reasons -- because he's experimenting with a technique, or because of scheduling limitations, or because of a feeling he wants to get from the actors and/or the film itself...

Remember, the word used in the headline is "choppy" (a descriptive term), not "sloppy" (a judgmental one). I'd love to hear more theories people have about what Scorsese was up to. Meanwhile, I'm going back to see the movie again...

I just saw The Departed with the above conversation in mind. I couldn’t discern any intentional theme or whatever being communicated in the choppy, poorly matched cuts, and I don’t have the imagination or inclination to fabricate any such reading to cover Scorsese. So, I think the simplest explanation is the best: he was editing according to performance rather than strict continuity, as has been stated above.
But I wouldn’t leave it at that. I think ignoring continuity undermines performance. Three things:

1. In a “performance rather than continuity�? formulation performance is pretty strictly limited to line readings and facial expressions. According to some, how actors relate to each other in space, manipulate props, move about the space, gesture with their limbs & whatnot are all fairly important to an actor’s craft, and, to my mind, these things are more important than line delivery or facial expression. So, despite undermining continuity for the sake of free improvisation, I can’t think of single very good performance in the film (Alec Baldwin, perhaps).

2. To what extent are you really cutting for the sake of the performances if you’re hacking them into bits and stitching good moments from untold dozens of different takes together? Isn’t this usually done as a cheat, to compensate for a poor performance? Here it’s probably a function of improvisation, but I’m not sold on the idea that having actors experiment constantly and putting the best parts together creates a particularly interesting whole. I rarely got a particular feeling from any scene in the Departed. I got interesting moments that didn’t relate satisfactory and an odd sense of disconnect between the performers... which might have something to do with why the minor continuity gaffes were so obvious to us.

3. Scorsese could’ve gotten the best line readings (if not facial expressions) without destroying continuity & coherent spatial relationships had he staged the action more creatively and dubbed the readings he wanted. That, of course, would’ve necessitated using long shots, which don’t fly in the style in which Scorsese is working (intensified continuity). On the other hand, he could’ve tightened the singles to eliminate towering desserts and other such props, but we’d be left with same shortcomings of intensified continuity, which have been rehearsed elsewhere (above, for starts, and parts of both Figures Traced in Light and The Way Hollywood Tells It), only they’d be exacerbated... but it'd look great on my Nano!
Pardon the lengthy post.

David K., I concur with you that "Breaking News" is quite jarring, and has very few cuts in one of these sequences - a beautiful sequence. It's fun to see how different directors will arrive at similar effects. Johnny To is one of the best directors on the planet when it comes to staging dramatically involved action sequences.

Mr. Bordwell, I appreciate your comments about how other countries treat these genres with more creativity. That is why I make my monthly visit to the video store in China Town. But regardless of fast or slow cutting, they do always manage to create something more effective than most of what I see from Bay or Simon West or any number of Hollywood directors do. As flawed or redundant as it may be, at least Scorcese's film rises above tripe like that. I think Scorcese knew what he was making when he walked into this. An entertaining Hollywood film. He basically served as a Director for hire. So in many ways he gave the studio what it wanted, and it's paying nicely thus far.

As for Scorcese's jarring style of editing being on purpose... I'll have to write up something a little more indepth at a later time.

Can I just say, in response to Andrew Tracy's comment about the "tortured rationales" the film's supporters allegedly use, how insulting those kinds of characterizations are? They're also a cheap way of deflecting disagreement, placing oneself as the calm, rational one and the people who disagree as deluded. There's something logically off about it- using the fact that a person has a particular opinion as "proof" that he's not exercising his best judgement, which makes that opinion by nature impossible to defend because if you do you're just another fanatic. It's not quite circular logic, but it's very close.

Moving on- it seems to me that a certain "chaos" factor is present in a lot of Scorcese's work. It was present in AVIATOR and GANGS, to good effect. GOODFELLAS has it in the Miami scenes- where it's arguably there to reinforce a certain vibe, but of course the more clean and orderly style of the other scenes can be said to serve the "banality of evil" theme. So the more ragged approach is something he seems to deploy for a reason, too.

Granted, this doesn't explain the outright continuity errors. But I don't think the style the film is shot in is just a concession to modern demands for fast editing. More importantly, it works. It creates a frission which fits the subject matter. In principle, yes, more filmmakers could do with slowing down and letting the camera sit still, but this film's failure to do so isn't really an aesthetic flaw.

So Jim, did you see the movie again? Any new thoughts?

Watched Infernal Affairs, best movie in years, the atmosphere, story line, acting, watched The Departed, disappointing, end of story.

Say what you want but that's my view after paying to see the movie.

Haven't seen the movie yet, but thought I'd throw this out into the discussion.

Walter Murch, probably the world's best known editor has a hierarchy of editing priorities called the rule of 6. It goes like this:

1. Emotion (51%)
2. Story (23%)
3. Rhythm (10%)
4. Eye-Trace (7%)
5 Two-dimensional plane of screen (5%)
6 Three-dimensional space of action (4%)

The last 3 in the list, the eyelines of the actors, the way in which the environment is made coherent, and the physical continuity of things in space or weighted at a total of 16%.

Murch's point, I think, is that editors are sometimes given choice between a take which is right for the emotion of the characters and the advancment of the plot, and one which is technically perfect, but is less successful with these other aspects. In these cases, you deprioritize continuity. Ideally, you use a take that succeeds at all 6, but this is not always possible.

Cheers

Julian, I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that many directors and editors do give priority to emotion, story and rhythm over continuity; they are simply saying that this might not have been the best choice in this particular film, since it was (to them) extremely distracting.

I have yet to watch The Departed, but I plan to do so within this week.

Love the original, can't say the same for the Departed.

I have a keen interest in movies (though have yet to acquire the jargon that would help make this post more authoritative) but to me The Departed felt like one long trailer.

Maybe I'm showing my age here, but the film's pace lacked anything like the variety required to develop an interest or belief in the characters. As for the stupid sub-plot of the police psychiatrist having sex with the Costigan character - give me a break.

came here via a comment on scott's filmmaker magazine post on my term "addi", which linked to david's post. i see im probably not the only one.

the thing i find interesting after reading through this entire discussion is no one mentions the jarring music editing.

more than once the music in a scene would end when a person answered their cell phone. it blatantly called attention to the score or at least the sudden cessation of it.

as to whether all these continuity breaking techniques enhanced the film - they didn't for me, but then im not a scorsese fan to begin with. i agree that the original was a better film.

I have *never* before watched a movie and noticed as many blatantly bad cuts as I did watching the Departed. It was actually distracting. People can explain it away, but to me it's sloppy, plain and simple.

actually, i might say that the departed is poorly edited. when speaking of jump cuts, most of you refer to the continuity gaffes but there are also point where simple actions like grabbing keys or even an automatic weapon going off is afflicted with seemingly random frames being snipped out. it is JARRING but i am completely for it if it is to achieve a certain affect. apparently, in the departed, IT DOES NOT! at points in the ambush sequence, things get staccato to the point where you think the film projector is getting jammed. seriously, what is the intended effect?

jin

I am no critic but I am a movie watcher. What was most evident in The Departed was the use of directorial techniques for effect rather than to effectively stir the emotions. I want to FEEL the effect of his directorial choices not become aware of them.

all i can say is, im not picky at all, i know there will be mistakes in movies, some more noticeable than others, and though i liked the departed, the errors were constat alllllllll throughout the movie, and it kinda makes you wonder, what the helll?? i mean he is a great director, and has a good editor.. how did they let this errors just be? i mean i dunno they were just to obvious and and pretty often

In memory of László Kovács”
The Consulate General of the Republic of Hungary in Los Angeles
pays tribute to the Great Hungarian American Cinematographer
László Kovács
at a Film Seminar
on October 15, 2007. at 3.30pm
at Chaplin Theatre – Raleigh Studios
5300 Melrose Ave, Hollywood, CA 90038

Program
 3.30 pm – Screening: „Master and the disciples”
A 28 -minute film on László KOVÁCS
Director: Csaba KÁEL
Producer: Béla BUNYIK

 Opening words by Cathy PORTUGES, Moderator – 2 minutes

 Greeting by The Honorable Consul General of Hungary
Ambassador Balázs BOKOR – 2 min.

 Presentation by
- Vilmos ZSIGMOND, Oscar Winner Cinematographer – 5 min.
- Bob FISHER, Journalist on Cinema – 5 min.
- Steven LIGHTHILL, Senior Filmmaker in Residence at AFI – 5 min.

 Dennis HOPPER`s special message read by Cathy PORTUGES – 2 min.

 The Moderator calls Béla BUNYIK, Founder and President of the Hungarian Film Festival in Los Angeles on the stage to brief the audience on the 7th Hungarian Film Festival – 2 min.

 Presentation by
- Michael NEWPORT, Manager - Raleigh Film – 5 min.
- Gyula GAZDAG, Filmmaker, UCLA Professor – 5 min.
- Gábor KÁLMÁN, USC Professor – 5 min.

 Peter Bogdanovich`s special message read by Cathy PORTUGES – 2 min.

 The Moderator calls Róbert GYŐRI, President of the William Fox Film Club on the stage to greet the audience – 2 min.

 Presentation by
- Attila BOKOR, Filmdirector, Director of „56 Drops of Blood” – 5 min.

 The Moderator calls Audrey KOVÁCS, widow of László on the stage

 Closure